------art_27054_21540139.1145561550671
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 4/20/06, Logan Capaldo <logancapaldo / gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Wouldn't it be neat if true === worked with anything that is
> interpreted as true


You saved my day, I was really disappointed when I found that this code  was
missing from ruby

def TrueClass.===(other);other?true:false;end
def FalseClass.===(other);! true === other; end ### That 1 is ugly
def NilClass.===(other);! true === other; end

shall we make a CR or for Ruby2?

e.g.
>
> case x
>    when true
>       ...
>     else
>       ...
> end
>
> Of course anyone would use an if statement in this situation, but it
> is kind of conceptually clean and sort of matches up with Range#===,
> Regexp#===, etc.


Completely agree and if anyone uses an if statement why should we!!!!!

But I guess it is up to everyone to "fix" ruby for his own needs.

Cheers
Robert



--
Deux choses sont infinies : l'univers et la bóŐise humaine ; en ce qui
concerne l'univers, je n'en ai pas acquis la certitude absolue.

- Albert Einstein

------art_27054_21540139.1145561550671--