I'm personally willing to accept the "no third person singular" rule at
this point, given the history.

Yehuda Katz
(ph) 718.877.1325


On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 4:14 AM, Andrew Grimm <andrew.j.grimm / gmail.com>wrote:

>
> Issue #5555 has been updated by Andrew Grimm.
>
>
> The spelling chosen was deliberate, according to this 2001 email
> http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/18951
>
> > > "responds_to?" probably makes more sense to English speakers than
> > > "respond_to?".
> >
> > Maybe.  But I'm Japanese.  Ruby is not English.  It's the basic naming
> > rule to avoid third person singular form in the standard libraries.
> >
> >   you = Human.new
> >   if you.respond_to?(:knock)
> >     ...
> >   end
> >
> >   buddies = member.collect{|x| x.friend_of?(me)}
> >   buddies.respond_to?(:select)
>
> Such spelling also exists for many other methods, such as
> String#start_with?
>
> If the spelling of include? were to be aliased, I'd recommend aliasing the
> spelling of all such methods, such as start_with? . Failing to do so would
> be a far greater inconsistency than include? versus has_key?
> ----------------------------------------
> Feature #5555: rename #include? to #includes?
> http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/5555
>
> Author: Alexey Muranov
> Status: Open
> Priority: Normal
> Assignee:
> Category:
> Target version:
>
>
> Shouldn't the #include? method be renamed to #includes? ?
> I think this will be closer to correct English and consistent with
> #has_key? method (not #have_key?).
>
>
> --
> http://redmine.ruby-lang.org
>
>