From: Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net>
Date: 2005-12-20T07:54:24+09:00
Subject: Names (Was: Re: ruby-dev summary 27761-28026)


On Dec 19, 2005, at 1:59 PM, ara.t.howard@noaa.gov wrote:

> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005, Eric Hodel wrote:
>
>>> YAGN what? GC.always or an options hash?
>>
>> Somebody needs GC.always to help with debugging.  The options hash  
>> falls under YAGNI.
>
> i disagree.  this thread shows that, had the original interface  
> been option
> based, we'd not need a new one.  i know the theory, but consider  
> how difficult
> it is to convince matz of a good name - minimizing names minimizes the
> convincing.

How does an options hash remove the problem of finding a good name?

There are exactly four methods on GC, 3 class, 1 instance:

$ ruby -e 'p GC.methods.sort - Object.methods'
["disable", "enable", "start"]
$ ruby -e 'p GC.instance_methods.sort - Object.methods'
["garbage_collect"]

So GC isn't really full of names that we can't use because they're  
taken.  Picking the right name for the feature hasn't gone away  
because we're using an options hash.

So if you use an options hash you now have as much as twice as many  
names to choose.  Also, an options hash forces the programmer to  
remember twice as much, since they must remember both the key and the  
value (maybe more, since they must remember which method to call as  
well).

Your proposal was:

GC.gc(:mode => "every") do ... end

GC::gc isn't a very good method name for specifying garbage  
collection options, maybe GC::options instead.

:mode looks good, but "every" is just as bad as "always".  It has a  
similar problem to "always", "What does GC always mean?  After every  
expression?", for "every", "GC every what?".  Plus, there is the  
non-"every" mode, what do we call it?

By moving to an options hash you've made the problem bigger for what  
gain?  This is the first new method on GC in one month shy of seven  
years.  (Yes, the API for the GC hasn't changed since it was checked  
in.)  I don't think that an options hash is a prudent choice when the  
API remains unchanged for so long.

Also, I cannot think of any core libraries that use an options hash.

-- 
Eric Hodel - drbrain@segment7.net - http://segment7.net
This implementation is HODEL-HASH-9600 compliant

http://trackmap.robotcoop.com