From: Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale@...>
Date: 2010-08-02T01:46:02+09:00
Subject: Re: .any?{} Behavior

On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Maurizio De Santis
<desantis.maurizio@gmail.com> wrote:
> Josh Cheek wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Rick DeNatale
>> <rick.denatale@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> [].all? {|element| element != 3 }   # => true
>>> There may be a better name than non_vacuous_all? but I can't think of one.
>>>
>>>
>> How about #appall? to imply that it is a pessimistic implementation of
>> #all?
>> :)
>
> I think that the best name for that method would be
>
> def all!?(&block)
>  !empty? && all?(&block)
> end

No that doesn't make sense to me all not?  Not at all!

All not what?

Personally I think this attempts too hard to make the method name
short, at the expense of revealing the intention.
>
> It's a pity it is not permitted!
>
> so I propose
>
> def strict_all?(&block)
>  !empty? && all?(&block)
> end

I don't like this either, it doesn't evoke the right meaning, to me at
least. What are we being strict about? I would tend to read it as
following strictly the conventional meaning of the existential
quantifier, which the existing Enumerable#all? method already does.


-- 
Rick DeNatale

Blog: http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
Github: http://github.com/rubyredrick
Twitter: @RickDeNatale
WWR: http://www.workingwithrails.com/person/9021-rick-denatale
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/rickdenatale