Ryan Leavengood wrote:
> On 10/8/05, David A. Black <dblack / wobblini.net> wrote:
> 
>>keep! implies keep.  I think keep (without the !) would be an inplace
>>operation already.  Or maybe keep_all { <test> }.
> 
> 
> I vote we add keep_all or keep_if, and make select! a synonym for it.
> Just like delete_if and reject!.
> 
> I feel symmetry and consistency is better than sticking to ideals of
> the English language. Of course I think select! makes as much sense as
> reject!, so for me it is a moot point.

It's not a matter of the English language as such -- English is just
the language that the keywords and method names are based on.

I oppose select! not on the basis on English purity, but on that of
Ruby purity.

One of the reasons I like Ruby is that Matz has *not* chosen to
slavishly follow symmetry and consistency.

Just my opinion.


Hal