In article <m2vg7s9o1g.fsf / zip.local.thomases.com>, Dave Thomas wrote:
> David Alan Black <dblack / candle.superlink.net> writes:
> 
>> Also it feels to me that the idea of a Boolean empty? test for nil
>> implies that there's the logical possibility of nil not being empty.
>> In other words, emptiness might be too rich a characteristic for nil
>> to have, or something like that.
> 
> And of course the existing Nil#nil? test is useful for those quantum
> computers we're been hearing about... :)

Couldn't we tell CGI what we're expecting - declare that we expect the 
environment to contain certain things and have it gripe if they're not
there.  If nothing was declared then we could still do what we do now
if we wanted.

This seems much more intentional than adding behaviour to nil to me...

Mike

-- 
mike / stok.co.uk                    |           The "`Stok' disclaimers" apply.
http://www.stok.co.uk/~mike/       | GPG PGP Key      1024D/059913DA 
mike / exegenix.com                  | Fingerprint      0570 71CD 6790 7C28 3D60
http://www.exegenix.com/           |                  75D2 9EC4 C1C0 0599 13DA