-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> Daniel Berger wrote:
>> To answer James' earlier question, there wouldn't be
>> much point to using this patch for bang methods, but
>> it would be handy for the boolean methods.
>> Instead of:
>> attr_writer :foo
>> def foo?
>>    @foo
>> end
>> I could just do:
>> attr_accessor :foo?

I, too, run into this a lot and wish attr_accessor :foo? "just worked."


On Sep 19, 2005, at 5:14 PM, James Britt wrote:
> I see.
> But does this, then, enforce the booleanitude of "foo?"?
> In other words, if you're going to have a method foo?, should it  
> not be something like
> [...]
> And should not foo=( val ) also enforce that @foo only takes on  
> boolean values?

The ? suffix indicates that we should use the method as a predicate.
Thankfully, Ruby does not require values in predicates to evaluate to
an explicit true or false.  Perhaps take a look at ML ;)

Given that attr_* are here to wrap a common idiom for our convenience,
it is natural that they should understand the ? suffix if it is in
widespread use.

Pragmatically yours,
jeremy
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFDL1ffAQHALep9HFYRAisUAKCn+hPmTn2p99vFOAf0DhPEZ317EwCfUS0D
Y+2EEs/eGhOEwXHhhBkEp3Y=
=oyc1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----