Talk:Empty string: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(promote this to task) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
::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 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) |
:::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) |
||
::::I think Kevin Reid's objection is valid, as none of the examples here so far provided a ''syntax'' dedicated to dealing with an empty string; <code>nil.to_s</code> in a sense is still showing the ''semantics'' about equivenlance between nil and empty string. It probably wouldn't do any harm to leave the "syntax" wording alone, but strictly speaking it shouldn't be there. --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 01:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::The possible minor rewording of the task description will not affect the task itself. Is there any reason that we can not promote this to task? [[User:Markhobley|Markhobley]] 16:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC) |
::The possible minor rewording of the task description will not affect the task itself. Is there any reason that we can not promote this to task? [[User:Markhobley|Markhobley]] 16:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC) |
||