From: Alexey Muranov <muranov@...>
Date: 2011-11-13T19:52:19+09:00
Subject: [ruby-core:40980] [ruby-trunk - Feature #5555] rename #include? to #includes?


Issue #5555 has been updated by Alexey Muranov.


Andrew Grimm wrote:
> 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?

Good explanation.  The method names can also me viewed as #(does_it_)include?
However, #has_key? then needs to be renamed to or aliased as #have_key?.

I also like the anonymous suggestion to require 'english_grammar' :).
----------------------------------------
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