From: Seth Thomas Rasmussen <sethrasmussen@...>
Date: 2006-10-01T14:15:10+09:00
Subject: Re: New magical version of Symbol.to_proc

Charles O Nutter wrote:
> The pluralization thing has too much potential for collision and looks
> jarring (to_as looks to me like "to" "as", which doesn't make any
> sense; then again I'm not a fan of programmatic pluralization for any
> reason, since it's very western-language-centric and far from
> foolproof (moose? virus? fish?)).

And just about every programming language syntax isn't already? I like
programmatic pluralization because it allows us to write code in the
same way we talk about it. It's like optimization for our brains, and
expressive power that seems to get closer to more intelligent programs,
as well as making syntax more accessible to laypersons. As for the
potential inaccuracy of converting certain terms, you could provide an
interface to add definitions as Rails' Inflector does.

On the topic at hand, I don't like the plurals option. The
Symbol#to_proc style currently in ActiveSupport seems just about
perfect to me, although I don't see why it couldn't just be:

foos.map :bar

p.s. I got totally lost with all that crazy.dot.talk. That hypothetic
code made me want to cry.