[ruby-talk:5599] Re: Regexp#matches

In article <[e-mail]>,
  "Everett L.(Rett) Williams" <[e-mail]> 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.