Hi -- On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, Nikolai Weibull wrote: > On 2/7/07, dblack / wobblini.net <dblack / wobblini.net> wrote: >> Hi -- >> >> On Wed, 7 Feb 2007, Nikolai Weibull wrote: >> >> > On 2/6/07, dblack / wobblini.net <dblack / wobblini.net> wrote: >> >> Hi -- >> >> >> >> On Tue, 6 Feb 2007, Nikolai Weibull wrote: >> >> >> >> > On 2/6/07, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz / ruby-lang.org> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> Both having ordAt(index) or making String#ord to return codepoint of >> >> >> the first character are trivial. We have to evaluate pros and cons >> >> >> first. >> >> > >> >> > Like the fact that #ordAt isn't a very Rubyish name. I really >> >> > appreciate the fact that the core and standard libraries use very >> >> > consistent naming schemes, where most methods have only one word in >> >> > them, thus avoiding the whole >> >> > >> >> >> came-case-versus-internal-upcasing-versus-lowline-separating-naming-scheme >> >> > holy-war. >> >> >> >> There are quite a few multi-word methods (respond_to?, values_at, >> >> to_i, instance_methods, etc.), all with the underscore style. I agree >> >> there's no "war" aspect to it, but there's definitely a traditional >> >> style. >> > >> > What I meant was that it seems that people have been clever enough to >> > avoid multi-word methods as far as possible, so that there really >> > never has to be a discussion about it. I know that the naming >> > conventions are camel-case for constants and lowlines for everything >> > else, but I realized early while reading through the early >> > documentation that every method seemed to have a very good single-word >> > name. >> >> irb(main):006:0> Object.new.methods.size >> => 40 >> irb(main):007:0> Object.new.methods.grep(/_/).size >> => 17 >> >> I guess __send__ and __id__ shouldn't count :-) It's still a large >> percentage, though. I don't think anyone's ever tried to avoid >> multi_word methods, except maybe when they get too big (though that >> can be handy too, in cases like instance_variable_get where the >> bigness draws attention to the possible inelegance of using the >> method). > > Well, here's a another way of calculating the percentage (and gives a > percentage one fourth of your 43%): > > String.new.public_methods(false).size / > String.new.public_methods(false).grep(/_/).size [1] > > which gives us 11%. Anyway, my feeling has always been that Ruby has > managed to use far simpler names for methods than many other > languages, which I appreciate. I agree. I don't think it's because people aren't willing to commit to the underscore style (at least in the core/standard library) -- but for whatever reason, the method-naming tends to be very appropriate and elegant. David -- Q. What is THE Ruby book for Rails developers? A. RUBY FOR RAILS by David A. Black (http://www.manning.com/black) (See what readers are saying! http://www.rubypal.com/r4rrevs.pdf) Q. Where can I get Ruby/Rails on-site training, consulting, coaching? A. Ruby Power and Light, LLC (http://www.rubypal.com)