Issue #9123 has been updated by alexeymuranov (Alexey Muranov).


fuadksd (Fuad Saud) wrote:
> I don't understand why we would want to be so strict about types on this
>  case. Having some arbitrary value being returned is useful and it doesn't
>  hurt any good practices. Ensuring predicates return true or false feels
>  useless for me

In my opinion, it is because code is intended mostly for reading, not for writing.

  a.sort {|a,b| (a.downcase <=> b.downcase).nonzero? || a <=> b }

is unexpected or confusing.
----------------------------------------
Feature #9123: Make Numeric#nonzero? behavior consistent with Numeric#zero?
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/9123#change-43102

Author: sferik (Erik Michaels-Ober)
Status: Open
Priority: Normal
Assignee: 
Category: 
Target version: 


Numeric#zero? returns true or false, while Numeric#nonzero? returns self or nil.

I've written a patch that fixes this inconsistency and adds a Numeric#nonzero (non-predicate) method that returns self or nil for chaining comparisons. I'd like for this to be included in Ruby 2.1.0.

https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/452.patch


-- 
http://bugs.ruby-lang.org/