Paul Prescod wrote:

> jweirich / one.net wrote:
>> 
>>...
>> 
>> Everytime someone suggests making more things "false", I think of this
>> conversation.
> 
> How is it useful to know the complete set of things that are false in the
> world? In an object oriented language, each object determines if it is
> false. What is the complete list of objects in the Ruby universe that
> respond false to the ".nonzero" message? I don't think you can innumerate
> them. But does it matter?
> 

In Ruby, it should be the to_b message, right?  Obviously, we have to_i, 
to_f, and to_s.  Not that this should be added, but if it were to be, it 
would make the most sense as to_b.  When an object does not evaluate to the 
expected boolean, you shouldn't have to check nonzero, followed by 
size/length (checking if Enumerable was included), etc.  Just one method, 
to keep it simple.  Object#to_b would be true while NilClass#to_b would be 
false.  if/unless/while/until could call to_b on the given expression.  
Just my $0.02

-- 
Ryan Tarpine, rtarpine / hotmail.com
"Technology is a queer thing.  It brings you great gifts
in one hand, and it stabs you in the back with the other."
         -- C.P. Snow