Conrad Schneiker writes:
> 

...

> > 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'?

Hmmm! Right now, I cannot remember I have heard of that word. For me
'mutator' would sounds like: taking one object and 'mutate' it to
another one using a 'mutator'. But as it should be a 'mutation', I
would expect that e.g. a Fixnum 'mutates' into a Bignum or vice versa!

But a string that was substituted using e.g. 'String::gsub!' would be
'modified' instead of 'mutated'! If a String could become a, let's
say, File, I could imagine to call that 'mutate'. For me 'mutation'
would mean that, at least, an object's base class has changed.

But as I am not a native speaker, perhaps my interpretation is
questionable!

Anyway 'mutator' is better than 'destructive'. If no other more
appropiate solution is popping up, I would vote for 'mutator' as I am
using one word instead of two then :-)

But what is with e.g. 'modificator'?

> 
> Conrad
> 

\cle

-- 
Clemens Hintze  mailto: c.hintze / gmx.net