Trans wrote:
> Trans wrote:
> 
>>>I personally always define them as:
>>>def a?
>>>       !!@a
>>>end
>>
>>Nice, thanks.
> 
> 
> Oops. Except that with Ruby it's not a simple as true and false, there
> is also nil. I think passing nil through unchanged is advantageous as
> it allows for yes, no, maybe (i.e. three state) value.
> 

I have failed to see when using three state's is needed. Could you 
provide an example where "my_obj.a?" would behave different if nil/false 
meant nil/maybe ?

Thanks,

Zach