--0016e644b9141d317704b188c33a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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 uman.new > > if you.respond_to?(:knock) > > ... > > end > > > > buddies ember.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 > > --0016e644b9141d317704b188c33a Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'm personally willing to accept the "no third person singular" rule at this point, given the history.<div><br clear="all">Yehuda Katz<br>(ph) 718.877.1325<br> <br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 4:14 AM, Andrew Grimm <span dir="ltr"><andrew.j.grimm / gmail.com></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"> <br> Issue #5555 has been updated by Andrew Grimm.<br> <br> <br> The spelling chosen was deliberate, according to this 2001 email <a href="http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/18951" target="_blank">http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/18951</a><br> <br> > > "responds_to?" probably makes more sense to English speakers than<br> > > "respond_to?".<br> ><br> > Maybe. ¨Âõô ɦ£³¹»Êáðáîåóå ¨Âõâéó îïÅîçìéóè® ¨Âô¦£³¹»ôèâáóéîáíéîç¼âò¾ > rule to avoid third person singular form in the standard libraries.<br> ><br> > you = Human.new<br> > if you.respond_to?(:knock)<br> > ...<br> > end<br> ><br> > buddies = member.collect{|x| x.friend_of?(me)}<br> > buddies.respond_to?(:select)<br> <br> Such spelling also exists for many other methods, such as String#start_with?<br> <br> 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?<br> <div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">----------------------------------------<br> Feature #5555: rename #include? to #includes?<br> <a href="http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/5555" target="_blank">http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/5555</a><br> <br> Author: Alexey Muranov<br> Status: Open<br> Priority: Normal<br> Assignee:<br> Category:<br> Target version:<br> <br> <br> Shouldn't the #include? method be renamed to #includes? ?<br> I think this will be closer to correct English and consistent with #has_key? method (not #have_key?).<br> <br> <br> --<br> <a href="http://redmine.ruby-lang.org" target="_blank">http://redmine.ruby-lang.org</a><br> <br> </div></div></blockquote></div><br></div> --0016e644b9141d317704b188c33a--