Hi --

On Fri, 21 May 2004, Dave Burt wrote:

> I've said this elsewhere in the thread, so just briefly here: true/false can
> possibly be considered not as basic as nil/object; true and false would then
> be seen as a secondary representation of that dichotomy, for convenience.
> See [ruby-talk:100755].

There's no nil/object dichotomy, though; nil is an object.  It's handy
for flagging certain conditions (like failure, as in Regexp#match),
but that's just a matter of convention; nil itself is still fully an
object.


David

-- 
David A. Black
dblack / wobblini.net