From: Yaser Sulaiman Date: 2013-03-05T21:16:04+09:00 Subject: Re: YourLanguageSucks --f46d04016ad9d576ea04d72c6f5d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 4:39 AM, Kiswono Prayogo wrote: > String#downcase? Who calls it "downcase?" It's called "lower case," > and the method should be called "lowercase" or "lower". And > String#upcase should have been called "uppercase" or "upper". > >> i agree, i found this annoying when i learn Ruby for the first time > I disagree. There is a general pattern of using verbs for method names, and I personally read both String#upcase and String#downcase as verbs and find them more consistent than the suggested "lower[case]" and "upper[case]": while "lower" can be a verb, "upper" definitely can't. Anyway, it's a minor point, but it is the one I can comment on for now. Regards, Yaser --f46d04016ad9d576ea04d72c6f5d Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 4:39 AM, Kiswono Prayogo <kiswono= @gmail.com> wrote:
String#downcase? Who calls it "downcase?" It's called "l= ower case,"
and the method should be called "lowercase" or "lower".= And
String#upcase should have been called "uppercase" or "upper&= quot;.
>> i agree, i found this annoying when i learn Ruby for the first tim= e

I disagree. There is a general patter= n of using verbs for method names, and I personally read both String#upcase= and String#downcase as verbs and find them more consistent than the sugges= ted "lower[case]" and "upper[case]": while "lower&= quot; can be a verb, "upper" definitely=A0can't.

Anyway, it's a minor point, but it is the one I can= comment on for now.

Regards,
Yaser
--f46d04016ad9d576ea04d72c6f5d--