On 2/7/07, dblack / wobblini.net <dblack / wobblini.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, Nikolai Weibull wrote:

> > 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.

Precisely.

  nikolai