Talk:Empty string: Difference between revisions

Content added Content deleted

Inline

Revision as of 19:58, 6 July 2011 (view source) Rdm (talk \| contribs) No edit summary ← Older edit		Revision as of 19:59, 6 July 2011 (view source) Rdm (talk \| contribs) mNo edit summary Newer edit →
Line 14:		Line 14:

	::nil.to_s is not ''syntax''; it's a method of nil! I will wait. —[[User:Kevin Reid\|Kevin Reid]] 18:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)		::nil.to_s is not ''syntax''; it's a method of nil! I will wait. —[[User:Kevin Reid\|Kevin Reid]] 18:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
	:::Certainly. But <code>nil.to_s</code> has syntax which is not the standard syntax for representing an arbitrary string. But perhaps your objection is that the syntax involved is not dedicated to the purpose of representing empty strings? It's true that <code>nil.to_s</code> is very general and that <code>'arbitrary string'.to_s</code> can be used to represent an arbitrary string. --[[User:Rdm\|Rdm]] 19:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)		:::Certainly. But <code>nil.to_s</code> has syntax which is not the standard syntax for representing an arbitrary string. But perhaps your objection is that the syntax involved is not dedicated to the purpose of representing empty strings? It's true that the method invocation syntax behind <code>nil.to_s</code> is very general and that <code>'arbitrary string'.to_s</code> can be used to represent an arbitrary string. --[[User:Rdm\|Rdm]] 19:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)