From: Mike Bethany <mikbe.tk@...>
Date: 2011-06-21T00:14:40+09:00
Subject: Re: RFC - One word alias for require_relative

--0016e6433954a4059804a6261cb5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-7
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

My top 10 suggestions (7 letters are too few):

10. what?
09. requirez
08. winning!
07. google
06. magnets
05. boxxy!
04. logophobia
03. potato
02. nomnomnom

And my number one suggestion... [drumroll]

01. mangina


On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Christopher Dicely <cmdicely@gmail.com>wro=
te:

> 2011/6/17 Ilias Lazaridis <ilias@lazaridis.com>:
> > On 17 =C9=EF=FD=ED, 21:17, Gary Wright <gwtm...@mac.com> wrote:
> >> I can't believe I'm adding to this conversation...
> >>
> >> Ruby already has an idiom for naming two related methods so how about:
> >>
> >> require "a/b"        # the usual
> >> require! "a/b"       # require relative to __FILE__
> >
> > This could become my new favourite.
> >
> > "!" is used as a convention, to clarify that a method "modifies the
> > object"
>
> This misstates the existing convention; see below.
>
> >
> > "!" could be used for stand-alone functions (e.g. the "flat" Kernel
> > functions which do not operate strictly on an object) to clarify (by
> > convention) "you should know what you do, possible risks" or simply
> > "alternate implementation".
>
> This second thing is actually the current convention for "!" for
> normal methods (e.g., not just "flat" Kernel functions.): "!"
> indicates a more-dangerous alternative when the base name is already
> used. It doesn't always indicate a mutating method, and mutating
> methods don't always have it.
>
> OTOH, require_relative is much more clear as to what it is doing than
> require! would be, amd. anyway, require! is 8 characters, not 7.
>
>

--0016e6433954a4059804a6261cb5--