Hi --

On Wed, 5 Oct 2005, Krekna Mektek wrote:

> Wow, thanx, these, especially the Little Ruby, A Lot of Objects draft
> book, are nice links.
>
>
> By the way, why are methods not named following the lowercaseUppercase
> convention, as in Java?

Because Ruby follows Ruby conventions, not Java conventions :-)

> This way I can see more directly that something is a method, and not
> an instance variable.

I think you mean "local variable", since instance variables can be
spotted anyway by their leading "@".  But in general you don't need to
know whether something is a method.  I know people sometimes stick
empty parentheses on bareword method calls, also in order to see that
it's a method, but it's never appealed to me to do so.  The name
should be descriptive enough to tell you what's going on -- and if
you lose track of what your variables and/or method names are, you
probably need to do some refactoring anyway :-)

> I'd like to do it that way, but am not sure if this is against some
> Ruby philosophy..

It's against traditional Ruby practice.  I'd recommend doing things in
as close to a traditional Ruby way as possible, and then eventually if
you feel there are problems you can address them.


David

-- 
David A. Black
dblack / wobblini.net