> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hal E. Fulton [mailto:hal9000 / hypermetrics.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 10:12 AM
> To: ruby-talk ML
> Subject: Re: An example of the beauty of Ruby...
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Alan Black" <dblack / candle.superlink.net>
> To: "ruby-talk ML" <ruby-talk / ruby-lang.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 8:01 AM
> Subject: RE: An example of the beauty of Ruby...
> 
> 
> > Hi --
> >
> > On Tue, 30 Apr 2002, Rich Kilmer wrote:
> >
> > > OK...about as nitpicking as it gets...
> >
> > Don't flatter yourself :-)
> >
> > > upload unless unchanged?
> > >
> > > Per the standard Rubyism of the question mark for Boolean methods.
> >
> > OK, now I want to know why the non-? version doesn't bother me.
> > I think it's because the name already denotes state, and therefore
> > connotes Booleanism.  Or vice versa, or something.
> >
> > As opposed to, say, var.nil, which without the question mark doesn't
> > convey any kind of test.
> >
> > To put it another way: there's nothing else, other than a true-false
> > indicator, that "unchanged" could be (natural languagewisely
> > speaking).
> 
> Actually, in this case, I did do it deliberately.
> 
> As David says, the name itself implies a Boolean. I like it
> better without the ?, even though normally I'd use one.
> 
> As for the double negative, that's just how my brain works...
> it wasn't a conscious decision. I think I like it this way.
> Or at least, I don't dislike it.  :) :)
> 
> Hal Fulton
> 

Well, lots of methods that append the ? in Ruby can linguistically be
inferred to return a Boolean value (like File.exists?) but the idiom is
to append the ? for Boolean methods...you don't have to follow it.

Wow this is a silly conversation ;-)

-rich