[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: false [was: The "Is nil present in a table" problem}
- From: Edgar Toernig <froese@...>
- Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 17:47:53 +0100
Paul Chakravarti wrote:
> Edgar Toernig writes:
> > And then define that if/while/not/... only accept 'false' and 'true'?
> > I thought about it myself but IMHO it complicates things more than
> > it would help.
> I dont think that this is necessary - all non nil/false values can
> still be treated as true - this is just a specialisation of the
> inplementation to include a 'true' class which is returned by
> relational operators (and can be explicitly assigned)
But that would result in two classes of behaviour: one only accepts
true and another that accepts anything but nil/false. I'm not sure
that I would like that...