Joel VanderWerf wrote:
> 
> Why not just define #empty? for Fixum, File, NilClass, and Object, and 
> then define nonempty? instead of (argh, can't... make... self... type... 
> this...) nnull? ?

Yes, nnull? is a pretty ugly name, isn't it? But I dislike long names
such as non_null, not_null, non_empty, aint_null, etc.

Actually, I like "null" better than "empty" -- just a meaningless opinion.

And by the way, my original purpose in defining null? was to use it for
the "nil_or_empty?" that people sometimes use.

> The possibility of confusion between nil and null is too great (for me 
> at least).
> 

And they're quite distinct in my mind -- another meaningless opinion
of mine.


Hal