From: Chip Turner <chip@...>
Date: 2000-02-12T16:57:06-05:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:01321] Re: Draft of the updated Ruby FAQ

Dave Thomas <Dave@thomases.com> writes:

> "Conrad Schneiker" <schneiker@jump.net> writes:
> 
> > From: Conrad Schneiker <schneiker@jump.net>
> > 
> > > I think that "1.9 Which is correct, Ruby or ruby?" needs to additionally
> > > include and describe a third name, "Ruby!", since Ruby is our method for
> > > changing the programming world for the better, right?
> > 
> > I forgot to mention that I think it would be better to designate
> > "destructive methods" as "change methods" or "replacement methods".
> 
> I must admit I don;t like 'destructive' either. I think some languages 
> call them 'mutators'.

Being strongly versed in other languages, and very new to Ruby, I must
agree that the term mutator has more meaning to me than destructive.
Perhaps destructive is more descriptive, but mutator is definitely the
term used most often to describe the situation I believe.

Chip

-- 
Chip Turner                   chip@ZFx.com
                              Programmer, ZFx, Inc.  www.zfx.com
                              PGP key available at wwwkeys.us.pgp.net