From: Intransition <transfire@...>
Date: 2012-05-24T04:27:18+09:00
Subject: Re: Opinion on String#camelcase

------=_Part_2790_26554227.1337801236789
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_2791_22964341.1337801236789"

------=_Part_2791_22964341.1337801236789
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



On Tuesday, May 22, 2012 11:23:51 AM UTC-4, Eric Christopherson wrote:
>
>
> It might be painful, but I'd change the names `uppercase` and 
> `lowercase` to be more specific about just affecting the first 
> character. With the current names it's ambiguous whether they convert 
> all the letters, just the first one, or something else. 
>
> (I found myself wondering why you didn't just use String#capitalize 
> instead of creating your own uppercase method, but then I found 
> #capitalize has the surprising [to me] feature of lowercasing all 
> non-initial letters... so the standard library is not immune to this 
> kind of naming ambiguity.) 
>
 
Yep. that's exactly why I ended up used #uppercase instead. With 
#capitalize off limits I couldn't think of any better method names at the 
time. But I agree with you in principle and would be open to any good 
suggestions.

For the record, I asked Matz to change the behavior of #capitalize some 
time ago, but "his idea of capitalize" (as he put it) was the current one. 
Personally I think that's too bad because it's easy enough to do 
`.downcase.capitalize` if that's what one wants. Typical I don't think it 
is. Couldn't hurt to lets matz know your thoughts on this too.

Thanks.

------=_Part_2791_22964341.1337801236789
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<br><br>On Tuesday, May 22, 2012 11:23:51 AM UTC-4, Eric Christopherson wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>It might be painful, but I'd change the names `uppercase` and
<br>`lowercase` to be more specific about just affecting the first
<br>character. With the current names it's ambiguous whether they convert
<br>all the letters, just the first one, or something else.
<br>
<br>(I found myself wondering why you didn't just use String#capitalize
<br>instead of creating your own uppercase method, but then I found
<br>#capitalize has the surprising [to me] feature of lowercasing all
<br>non-initial letters... so the standard library is not immune to this
<br>kind of naming ambiguity.)
<br></blockquote><div>&nbsp;</div><div>Yep. that's exactly why I ended up used #uppercase instead. With #capitalize off limits I couldn't think of any better method names at the time. But I agree with you in principle and would be open to any good suggestions.</div><div><br></div><div>For the record, I asked Matz to change the&nbsp;behavior&nbsp;of #capitalize some time ago, but "his idea of capitalize" (as he put it) was the current one. Personally I think that's too bad because it's easy enough to do `.downcase.capitalize` if that's what one wants. Typical I don't think it is.&nbsp;Couldn't hurt to lets matz know your thoughts on this too.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks.</div>
------=_Part_2791_22964341.1337801236789--

------=_Part_2790_26554227.1337801236789--