From: Alberto Almagro <albertoalmagro@...>
Date: 2017-10-06T09:21:06+02:00
Subject: [ruby-core:83150] Re: Alias Enumerable#include? to	Enumerable#includes?

--===============2093769406==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c07fd4c5f4ef8055adbb013"

--94eb2c07fd4c5f4ef8055adbb013
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Then we should stop evolving the language because all the new stuff we
could introduce would eventually increase learning,
review, optimization, and implementation costs, right?

2017-10-06 9:04 GMT+02:00 Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net>:

> Alberto Almagro <albertoalmagro@gmail.com> 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: <mailto:ruby-core-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> <http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>
>

--94eb2c07fd4c5f4ef8055adbb013
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Then we should stop evolving the language because all the =
new stuff we could introduce would eventually=C2=A0<span style=3D"font-size=
:12.8px">increase learning,</span><br style=3D"font-size:12.8px"><span styl=
e=3D"font-size:12.8px">review, optimization, and implementation costs, righ=
t?</span></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">20=
17-10-06 9:04 GMT+02:00 Eric Wong <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:n=
ormalperson@yhbt.net" target=3D"_blank">normalperson@yhbt.net</a>&gt;</span=
>:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-l=
eft:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D"">Alberto Almagro &lt;<=
a href=3D"mailto:albertoalmagro@gmail.com">albertoalmagro@gmail.com</a>&gt;=
 wrote:<br>
&gt; this was mentioned at Euruko&#39;s conference by Bozhidar Batsov and f=
ully<br>
&gt; resonated with my own personal experience using Ruby. As I tweeted aft=
er<br>
&gt; the conference I would like to contribute to make Ruby better, and<br>
&gt; aliasing Enumerable#include? with Enumerable#includes? would be a grea=
t<br>
&gt; start. I simply can&#39;t remember how many times I have written inclu=
des?<br>
&gt; instead of include? Last Saturday I definitely confirmed that I&#39;m =
not the<br>
&gt; only one. What do you think?<br>
<br>
</span>Having multiple names for the same thing increases learning,<br>
review, optimization, and implementation costs.=C2=A0 IMHO, Ruby<br>
already has too many aliases which make things more difficult<br>
than they should be; we should not add more aliases.<br>
<br>
<br>
Furthermore, there are many classes outside Enumerable with<br>
&quot;include?&quot; which would also need &quot;includes?&quot; for consis=
tency if<br>
your change were accepted.=C2=A0 This also applies to 3rd-party<br>
libraries like Rack and Rails which subclass core Ruby classes<br>
or define workalike &quot;include?&quot; methods for databases or<br>
case-insensitive hashes.<br>
<br>
Introducing a second name would be harmful to polymorphic use.<br>
<br>
If Ruby were a brand new language with no baggage, we may only<br>
have &quot;includes?&quot; instead.=C2=A0 But Ruby has tons of outside<br>
dependencies which already rely on &quot;include?&quot; for several<br>
decades, now.<br>
<br>
<br>
A similar example: *nix has a similar problem with &quot;creat&quot; and<br=
>
&quot;O_CREAT&quot;.=C2=A0 Introducing &quot;create&quot; and &quot;O_CREAT=
E&quot; as aliases at<br>
this point would only harm compatibility, portability, and<br>
reviewability.<br>
<div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><br>
Unsubscribe: &lt;mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:ruby-core-request@ruby-lang.org">=
ruby-core-request@<wbr>ruby-lang.org</a>?subject=3D<wbr>unsubscribe&gt;<br>
&lt;<a href=3D"http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core=
" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">http://lists.ruby-lang.org/<wbr>cgi-=
bin/mailman/options/ruby-<wbr>core</a>&gt;<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>

--94eb2c07fd4c5f4ef8055adbb013--

--===============2093769406==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline


Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-core-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>

--===============2093769406==--