From: Trans <transfire@...>
Date: 2006-10-01T20:55:17+09:00
Subject: Re: New magical version of Symbol.to_proc


Seth Thomas Rasmussen wrote:
> 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.

Rails :\