2008/9/30 Yusuke ENDOH <mame / tsg.ne.jp>:
> Hi Ryan,
>
> 2008/9/30 Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby / zenspider.com>:
>>
>> On Sep 25, 2008, at 09:02 , Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
>>
>>> Basically, the method names in ruby use plain form if they are verbs.
>>> Ruby is not English, nor Ruby does not belong to English speaking
>>> people (although it uses a lot of English words).
>>
>> I don't think anyone has claimed that ruby is English or that in belongs to
>> anyone or anything...
>
> matz said: ``Basically, the method names in ruby use plain form if
> they are verbs.''  Why is only assert_raises an exception?
>
>
>> but where it uses English, it should use the best
>> English choice available.
>
> I guess this thought is ``Ruby belongs to English speaking people.''
>
> assert_raise is a mere method in the standard library of ruby.  So I
> think it should respect the basis of ruby unless there is a compelling
> reason.
>
>
> Especially about assert_raise, in test/unit, assert_raises is deprecated
> and assert_raise is provided instead.  Reversing them is too confusing
> to me.  If you want to deprecate assert_raise by any means, I think you
> must suggest a new name that is neither assert_raise nor assert_raises.
>
>
> Now, the most important problem is the fact that we have little time to
> disscuss it.  We must decide it ASAP.  But according to my experience,
> method name problems do often need long time.
>
> I think that the suggestion that changes assert_raise was too late and
> missed 1.9 freeze deadline.


We seem to get a little time to discuss this.

I still think that assert_raises is confusing and that another name is better.

-- 
Yusuke ENDOH <mame / tsg.ne.jp>