From: Conrad Schneiker <schneiker@...>
Date: 2000-05-10T22:42:29-05:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:02727] Re: Append alias for Array.append?

Hi,

From: Dave Thomas

> "Conrad Schneiker" <schneiker@jump.net> writes:
>
> > > Rather than having <<, push, append, tackOnTheEnd, enQueue, and all
> > > the rest, why not have just one (say <<) and then distribute a
> >
> > Wait! Stop right there!
> >
> > Don't ruin a Good Idea (tm(tm(...))) by distributing oxymoronic standard
> > deviations (tm(tm(...))). To new Ruby users, that would be tantamount to
> > implementing the principle of increasing surprises.
> >
> > I prefer just one standard set of method names for the same reason I
prefer
> > just one standard set of keywords. (I realize that backwards
compatibility
> > will preclude achieving this until Ruby 3000, but this design goal
should
> > hold for everything new.)
>
> I happen to agree 100% (particularly if you all let _me_ choose the
> set of methods to keep ;-).

OK, it's a deal then.

> (still waiting for c.l.r on his newsserver)

That's outrageous.

Maybe it's about time to prod your ISP.

With a high-voltage cattleprod.

Conrad