From: nathaniel@...
Date: 2002-12-21T09:05:39+09:00
Subject: Re: [ANN] Test::Unit 0.1.5

Hal E. Fulton [mailto:hal9000@hypermetrics.com] wrote:

> Hmm, I missed that discussion and can't find it now.

One such thread starts at ruby-talk:35787.


> Well, first of all:
> 1. Your software, not mine! And thanks for 
> doing this, by the way.

I enjoy doing it, and even enjoy the discussions about naming. Always
makes me think, at least :-).

And I wouldn't consider it my software... I'm simply the current
caretaker of it. The community as a whole will certainly use it a lot
more corporately than I ever will personally.


> 2. I accept that you're not going to change
> the names and I'm not flaming you.

I'm not worried about anybody flaming me. I'm always interested in
discussing design decisions, and I'm sorry if I implicated otherwise.


> But speaking as a nitpicker and the son of an
> English teacher, emphatically a mixed blessing,
> I'm always bothered by antiparallelism.
> 
> For example, suppose I had "starting" and "ending"
> methods of some kind. I might name them 
> initiate/terminate (verbs) or initiation/termination
> (nouns). But I'd never name them initiate/termination
> or initiation/terminate.
> 
> But you had a verb-verb form and explicitly changed 
> it to noun-verb. Why? What does that buy you?

This change was all about eliminating the underscore in setup. I decided
not to change tear_down originally, since I had some kind of mental
block that caused me to think that tear_down was always two words. I was
wrong; it can, indeed, be one word. Thus, I'm now heavily leaning
towards making it teardown, since I, too, do not like antiparallelisms.

Thoughts?


Nathaniel

<:((><
+ - -
| RoleModel Software, Inc.
| EQUIP VI