On Apr 6, 2013 9:12 PM, "rosenfeld (Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas)" <
rr.rosas / gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Matthew, if you have tried to provide a real use case you'd understand
what I meant. For user.profile.website.thumbnail, for instance, don't you
agree that neither user, profile or website are expected to be possibly
"false" values? You'd never call false.thumbnail, right? And a website
should never be false, although it could be nil, right? That's what I'm
talking about. There's no sense in checking for false values before calling
a method on it because no one in any real application would be calling any
meaningful method over the "false" object, right?

My guiding principle is: if the syntax mimics &&, the behaviour should test
truthiness. My proposed abortive mechanism was `&&.=B4