On Thursday 16 January 2003 07:41 pm, dblack / candle.superlink.net wrote: > I've actually been thinking about whether one could plausibly > implement a sort of "NACK" response (i.e., lack of response) from an > object, which would be neither nil nor false nor an exception, but > which would happen in the course of the method being called: > > case self.some_meth > when /y/ ... > when /n/ ... > when nil ... > when nack ... > end now that is a very interesting idea. NACK as in Not ACKnowledged, yes? reminds me a little of javascripts NaN and undefined. but something like this would be so much more useful in Ruby --so much cleaner than having to use respond_to? but this would cause one major change in Ruby's current behavior. NACK methods would not raise an error. -- tom sawyer, aka transami transami / transami.net .''. .''. . *''* :_\/_: . :_\/_: _\(/_ .:.*_\/_* : /\ : .'.:.'. .''.: /\ : ./)\ ':'* /\ * : '..'. -=:o:=- :_\/_:'.:::. | ' *''* * '.\'/.' _\(/_'.':'.' : /\ : ::::: = *_\/_* -= o =- /)\ ' * '..' ':::' === * /\ * .'/.\'. '._____ * | *..* : |. |' .---"| * | _ .--'| || | _| | * | .-'| __ | | | || | .-----. | |' | || | | | | | || | ___' ' /"\ | '-."". '-' '-.' '` |_. ------------------------------------------------------------