In article <1099108973.918346.12359.nullmailer / x31.priv.netlab.jp>, Yukihiro
Matsumoto wrote:
>Hi,
>
>In message "Re: Another scrach on head"
>    on Sat, 30 Oct 2004 03:38:43 +0900, Jamis Buck <jgb3 / email.byu.edu> writes:
>
>|No, I mispoke for the sake of simplification. nil and false _evaluate to 
>|false_ in a boolean context, and everything else evaluates to _true_ in 
>|a boolean context.
>
>Ruby never get passed on telephone test.
>
>"In Ruby, nil and false are false, but nil is not false, because false
>does not equal to nil.."
>
>							matz.

This reminds me of some code written by a (normally sensible) co-worker.
It went something like
   
   unless foo
     ...
   else
     ...
   end

I like to call the second condition "else if not unless foo."