From: Yehuda Katz Date: 2011-11-13T00:17:12+09:00 Subject: [ruby-core:40969] Re: [ruby-trunk - Feature #5555] rename #include? to #includes? --0016e644b9141d317704b188c33a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I'm personally willing to accept the "no third person singular" rule at this point, given the history. Yehuda Katz (ph) 718.877.1325 On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 4:14 AM, Andrew Grimm wrote: > > Issue #5555 has been updated by Andrew Grimm. > > > The spelling chosen was deliberate, according to this 2001 email > http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/18951 > > > > "responds_to?" probably makes more sense to English speakers than > > > "respond_to?". > > > > Maybe. But I'm Japanese. Ruby is not English. It's the basic naming > > rule to avoid third person singular form in the standard libraries. > > > > you = Human.new > > if you.respond_to?(:knock) > > ... > > end > > > > buddies = member.collect{|x| x.friend_of?(me)} > > buddies.respond_to?(:select) > > Such spelling also exists for many other methods, such as > String#start_with? > > If the spelling of include? were to be aliased, I'd recommend aliasing the > spelling of all such methods, such as start_with? . Failing to do so would > be a far greater inconsistency than include? versus has_key? > ---------------------------------------- > Feature #5555: rename #include? to #includes? > http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/5555 > > Author: Alexey Muranov > Status: Open > Priority: Normal > Assignee: > Category: > Target version: > > > Shouldn't the #include? method be renamed to #includes? ? > I think this will be closer to correct English and consistent with > #has_key? method (not #have_key?). > > > -- > http://redmine.ruby-lang.org > > --0016e644b9141d317704b188c33a Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'm personally willing to accept the "no third person singular&quo= t; rule at this point, given the history.

Yehuda Katz=
(ph) 718.877.1325


On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 4:14 AM, Andrew = Grimm <and= rew.j.grimm@gmail.com> wrote:

Issue #5555 has been updated by Andrew Grimm.


The spelling chosen was deliberate, according to this 2001 email http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/189= 51

> > "responds_to?" probably makes more sense to English spe= akers than
> > "respond_to?".
>
> Maybe. =A0But I'm Japanese. =A0Ruby is not English. =A0It's th= e basic naming
> rule to avoid third person singular form in the standard libraries. >
> =A0 you =3D Human.new
> =A0 if you.respond_to?(:knock)
> =A0 =A0 ...
> =A0 end
>
> =A0 buddies =3D member.collect{|x| x.friend_of?(me)}
> =A0 buddies.respond_to?(:select)

Such spelling also exists for many other methods, such as String#start_with= ?

If the spelling of include? were to be aliased, I'd recommend aliasing = the spelling of all such methods, such as start_with? . Failing to do so wo= uld be a far greater inconsistency than include? versus has_key?
-----------------------------------= -----
Feature #5555: rename #include? to #includes?
http= ://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/5555

Author: Alexey Muranov
Status: Open
Priority: Normal
Assignee:
Category:
Target version:


Shouldn't the #include? method be renamed to #includes? ?
I think this will be closer to correct English and consistent with #has_key= ? method (not #have_key?).


--
http://redmine.r= uby-lang.org


--0016e644b9141d317704b188c33a--