From: Sean O'Dell <sean@...>
Date: 2004-06-11T03:57:19+09:00
Subject: Re: [ANN] Ruby/Interface

On Thursday 10 June 2004 10:57, Mark Hubbart wrote:
> On Jun 10, 2004, at 8:33 AM, Sean O'Dell wrote:
> > On Thursday 10 June 2004 01:28, Jean-Hugues ROBERT wrote:
> >> At 04:55 10/06/2004 +0900, you wrote:
> >>
> >> Should be implement?() vs implements?() I believe.
> >> See include?() for example.
> >> That is a nice Ruby idiom.
> >
> > It's not proper English, but perhaps implement? is more "Ruby."
>
> After being annoyed with what looked like improper English in
> all those #foo? methods, I noticed that you could read them as, say,
> "does foo include?" or "does foo respond_to?" etc... They make sense
> that way, and are proper English, inasmuch as any programming construct
> is proper English :)

Interesting way to look at it.

Running my eyes over a lot of Ruby methods, I can see that implement? is more 
correct.  However, I noticed that some methods are has_ or is_ prepended to 
them.  I guess when does_ makes more sense, the rule is to eliminate it?  
Either way, I see the pattern and I prefer the library behave the way people 
"expect" so I'll change the method names.

Just a side-note: I've added pre-defined interfaces for IArray, IHash, 
IString, IDate and ITime so far.  0.6 will have ITime and IDate and whatever 
others I add.  0.5 already has those others.

	Sean O'Dell