Issue #12515 has been updated by Tsuyoshi Sawada.


Martin Drst wrote:
> Actually, because both `true` and `false` are singletons, `TrueClass` and `FalseClass` look like overkill; in Ruby's ducktyping world, most if not all things would work just as well with the necessary methods for `true` and `false` being defined directly as singleton methods on `true` and `false`.

My understanding is that defining a singleton method on an object creates a singleton class. And in case of `true`, `false` or `nil`, the singleton classes are in fact the classes in question:

~~~ruby
true.singleton_class # => TrueClass
false.singleton_class # => FalseClass
nil.singleton_class # => NilClass
~~~

so there is no way to get rid of these classes.

And by the way for the `Boolean` class proposed in this thread, it surely is un-useful.

----------------------------------------
Feature #12515: Create "Boolean" superclass of TrueClass / FalseClass
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/12515#change-59465

* Author: Loren Segal
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee: 
----------------------------------------
Since Ruby 2.4 is unifying Bignum/Fixnum into Integer (https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/12005), it seems reasonable to do something similar for TrueClass / FalseClass, and create a proper Boolean hierarchy. The implementation would be fairly straightforward and should be back compat unless someone already has a "Boolean" class at toplevel out there.

Given the compatibility implications of Integer, this Boolean proposal is even less intrusive.

Sample implementation:

~~~
class Boolean < BasicObject; end
class TrueClass < Boolean; end
class FalseClass < Boolean; end
~~~




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

Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-core-request / ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>