"The Rails Way" is to do this:

If you actually required a bool for whatever reason I personally just double bang it, however usually nil from the method call does just fine without explicitly doing this like this

My preference is toward ternaries to keep things concise, readable, and boolean.

No need for the ternary operator, double bang will give you a bool

Personally the only time you should explicitly return a bool is when the method uses the question mark, otherwise a simple nil is fine IMO as that is the result of most failing iterators etc, so it is more natural

http://www.therailsway.com/2007/8/1/dangers-of-cargo-culting

haha article from a rails guy... wooo.. thats lots of help. Do you not agree that when you are 'asking' a method foo? that it should not return a bool? hence the question mark, I dont know thats my take on english.

No, it's a pointless conversion. You will never explicitly compare a question mark method to a boolean. That is bad style. Keep the code as simple as possible.

Perhaps not with Ruby since people just kinda fling things around

Basically, I try to return an object or nil if I set or get something, and just boolean values when it is a validator/predicate. If a method returns just as you need, you shouldn't bloat the code with extra returns or if-then-ends.

@Adam wrote, "You will never explicitly compare a question mark method to a boolean. That is bad style."

No, but I quite often compare the results of two predicates. And, this is *NOT* bad style. How many languages do you know have a logical-XNOR operator?

Cry me a river. Predicates are intended to return true or false. I've (fortunately) never had the utter misfortune to experience otherwise while coding in Ruby. The whole reason the "?" character is allowed in symbol names to begin with is to encourage a widespread coding convention where predicates return true booleans. Please don't break the language by not doing so.