From: Simon Krahnke <overlord@...>
Date: 2007-08-17T09:35:00+09:00
Subject: Re: ! semantics

* <dblack@rubypal.com> (04:19) schrieb:

>> Most methods flagged with a ! are dangerous because they modify their
>> receiver.
>
> Many of them are, but there's no cause-and-effect between modifying
> and !.

You are hitting a strawman.

>> Array#pop is modifying but not dangerous, because everyone expects it to
>> be modifying.
>
> If the name doesn't connote destructiveness, then you should change
> the name.

Obviously the many examples of pairs with and without ! don't follow
that guideline.

>>>> What if some other developer wants to add the non-modifying version?
>>>> He would have to rename your version.
>>>
>>> I think that's a solution in search of a problem.
>>
>> No, that's a problem.
>
> Not really. If I have a "pop" method,

We have an "apply" method.

> In other words, m/m! is not the only possible ratio between methods.

Who said it was?

> There's also m/n, which can be just as close as m/m!. pop/last is an
> example; so is concat/+ (also for arrays).

And there is m/m!. If you write m!, name it m!, not m.

> I don't think I can quite follow all the convolutions we're getting
> into :-)  I've posted something about the ! on my blog, if anyone's
> interested:
>
> http://dablog.rubypal.com/2007/8/15/bang-methods-or-danger-will-rubyist

You write "create the traditional pair of methods", that's right. But now
I'm too lazy to write the simple non-modifying wrapper. That's not a good
reason to omit the !.

BTW: Is there any reason you don't mention your whole name in your posts?

mfg,             simon .... someone wrote a blog because of my posts