Luke Palmer wrote:
Marcus Adair writes: > Additionally I question whether this is truly a case improving to the > point of least surprise? After all, I don't know a programmer who's > going to be surprised by what true means. There are still *some* things > you may have to learn in software dev 101 ;)
The problem is this (common) one:
if answer() == true { # do something }
We want to give the programmer no good way to do that, because it's wrong.
What do you mean "wrong"? It looks perfectly valid to me. It's redundant, since answer() by itself would suffice as a condition with no comparison, but does that make it wrong?
