From: Eric Wong Date: 2017-10-06T07:04:34+00:00 Subject: [ruby-core:83149] Re: Alias Enumerable#include? to Enumerable#includes? Alberto Almagro wrote: > this was mentioned at Euruko's conference by Bozhidar Batsov and fully > resonated with my own personal experience using Ruby. As I tweeted after > the conference I would like to contribute to make Ruby better, and > aliasing Enumerable#include? with Enumerable#includes? would be a great > start. I simply can't remember how many times I have written includes? > instead of include? Last Saturday I definitely confirmed that I'm not the > only one. What do you think? Having multiple names for the same thing increases learning, review, optimization, and implementation costs. IMHO, Ruby already has too many aliases which make things more difficult than they should be; we should not add more aliases. Furthermore, there are many classes outside Enumerable with "include?" which would also need "includes?" for consistency if your change were accepted. This also applies to 3rd-party libraries like Rack and Rails which subclass core Ruby classes or define workalike "include?" methods for databases or case-insensitive hashes. Introducing a second name would be harmful to polymorphic use. If Ruby were a brand new language with no baggage, we may only have "includes?" instead. But Ruby has tons of outside dependencies which already rely on "include?" for several decades, now. A similar example: *nix has a similar problem with "creat" and "O_CREAT". Introducing "create" and "O_CREATE" as aliases at this point would only harm compatibility, portability, and reviewability. Unsubscribe: