From: "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
Date: 2005-10-08T07:44:02+09:00
Subject: Re: select! not present but reject! is

On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, Jacob Fugal wrote:

> On 10/7/05, Mark Hubbart <discordantus@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Also, I'm not really advocating any action here. I'm just suggesting
>> that it would be a little weird for "select!" to be the exact opposite
>> of "reject!", since the Ruby definitions wouldn't stand up to the
>> English ones.
>
> I'll concede that, but IMNSHO consistency between the non-bang and
> bang versions seems more important.

The most important thing, though, is that every method name be
appropriate.  If select! ("dangerous select") is the best way to
communicate the "delete unless..." process, then it's right.  If not,
then not.  It's reasonable to expect that a/b == a!/b! -- but the
existence of a, b, and a! doesn't mean that b! is a good method name
for the inverse of a!.


David

-- 
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net