From: Clemens Hintze <c.hintze / gmx.net>
To: ruby-talk ML <ruby-talk / netlab.co.jp>
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2000 5:08 AM
Subject: [ruby-talk:01445] Re: Yield


> Conrad Schneiker writes:
> > From: Dave Thomas <Dave / thomases.com>

> > Could we (the readers of this newsgroup)--in the interest of
learn-ability,
> > teach-ability, comprehensibility, public friendliness, principle of
least
> > surprise, not using Perl-like obscurities (e.g. bless), and everything
else
> > that otherwise makes Ruby great--could we all agree on a better name for
the
> > yield statement that would also be acceptable to Matz, and which could
> > co-exist for a year or so with a depreciated yield?
>
> Sorry, but I do not think, that a 'yield' should be deprecated. If we
> introduce a new statement besides 'yield', then ok!

OK.

> I, for example, have no time to search and change all my software
> based on this. If I would try, my boss would ask me very seriously, if
> I think Ruby could be called 'finished' (in terms of ready-to-use), or
> if we should wait for one or two years. And then, he would not agree
> any longer, that I use it.

Very important point.

> > (PS: likewise, can we agree to describe "destructive methods" as "change
> > methods"?)
>
> This would be better, IMHO. 'Destructive' means for me:
> destruct/destroy the object. But it is changed really! So I would vote
> for it!

Would you also vote for 'mutator'?

Conrad