jweirich / one.net writes:


[...]

> Everytime someone suggests making more things "false", I think of this
> conversation.

I didn't suggest making more things false.

I said I was shot in the foot because of the following (apprently
misunderstood) inconsistency: you may test something which would yield
"nil" for its truth value, because "nil" is false, but you may not with
"0" because every numbers including "0" is true.

The inconsistency is because Ruby will silently assume than 0 is false.

I would like that either "0" is false, or that testing for truth value for
a number would throw an exception.



-- 
Guillaume Cottenceau - http://people.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/