From: Mauricio Fernandez <mfp@...>
Date: 2007-01-13T21:14:13+09:00
Subject: Re: a most undangerous Hash#store!

On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 11:15:08AM +0900, Trans wrote:
> Mauricio Fernandez wrote:
> > Yes, that's the idea ("more regular behavior"), but as Robert said, a
> > predicate method with side-effects seems _very_ dangerous (yes, store!? would
> > be more accurate :).
> >
> > So it might make sense to name it e.g. #store_once, with the above
> > semantics. Returning the value that was passed to the method makes little
> > sense: it doesn't provide any information we didn't have to being with.
> 
> i agree. i will use that semantic but with a different name. after
> further consideration I thought of:
> 
>   insert(key,value)
> 
> i think its apt. argree?

The problem with that name is that there's no indication of the "just once"
semantics, is there? Instead, it makes one think of String#insert and
Array#insert, and wonder what #insert translates to in an unordered container
(for instance, one interpretation would be that the value will be
pushed/unshifted to the array associated to the key, assuming that the hash
holds arrays/sets).
So it adds to the list of things we have to memorize.

Do you feel that store_{once,new,unique} is too long?
(I have a slight preference for "once"; "unique" seems a bit puzzling since it
seems to refer to the key, which is always unique)

-- 
Mauricio Fernandez  -   http://eigenclass.org   -  singular Ruby