--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&#39;m personally willing to accept the &quot;no third person singular&quot; 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">&lt;andrew.j.grimm / gmail.com&gt;</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>
&gt; &gt; &quot;responds_to?&quot; probably makes more sense to English speakers than<br>
&gt; &gt; &quot;respond_to?&quot;.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Maybe.   ɦ    
&gt; rule to avoid third person singular form in the standard libraries.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; you = Human.new<br>
&gt; if you.respond_to?(:knock)<br>
&gt; ...<br>
&gt; end<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; buddies = member.collect{|x| x.friend_of?(me)}<br>
&gt; 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&#39;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&#39;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--