From: hal9000@... Date: 2000-10-17T02:40:02+09:00 Subject: [ruby-talk:5599] Re: Regexp#matches In article <39EA7359.4E4EE62F@gvtc.com>, "Everett L.(Rett) Williams" wrote: > matz, [snip] > Since English is not your > native language, you might not know that "third person, singular" > has nothing to do with the usage of "exists" rather than "exist". > Rather, > it stems from the necessity in English of having the noun and the verb > agree whether we are using plural or singular. If your method normally > refers to multiple items, then "they exist". If it normally refers to a > single item, then "it exists". If it goes both ways, then either would > be logical. Since we normally, philosophically refer to existence as > a singular thing, even when referring to a group, "exists" might be > more appropriate. > Well, flame bait or not, I'll venture a comment. This response is intended neither as flame nor troll. :) An object, however many components it may have, is a singular entity. We can't call a method with more than one receiver. So Matz is ignoring the plural. And his assessment that the third person is the proper person is correct; it makes no sense to think of an object in the first or second person. So, in English, "I exist," "you exist," but "he/she/it exists" (third person). So offhand, though Matz's English is flawed, I'd say his theoretical knowledge of English grammar is comparable to yours or better. Now this reasoning seems to prefer "exists" to "exist." But I will continue. The infinitive form of the verb (which English typically uses with first and second person singluar subjects) is the "real" or basic form of the verb. This is true in English, Latin, French, German, Italian, and Spanish, to name a few. So using the infinitive form is actually conducive to non-native speakers of English learning Ruby more easily. What is more, the English.rb provides an out for people who simply can't tolerate little discrepancies like that. But the bottom line is this: indiivduals may disagree with trivial decisions like this one, but they have their own logic and are defensible. They are not arbitrary or haphazard. Though the words in Ruby come from English, Ruby isn't English. I do prefer "matches" to "match." But if conflicts with a prior design decision, it's not worth bothering with, especially since I can define "matches" myself anytime I want. Enough said. Let's talk about programming again. -- Hal Fulton Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.