I agree.

Michel Demazure (French)

michel@demazure.com

De : Yehuda = Katz [mailto:wycats@gmail.com]
Envoy=E9 : samedi 12 = novembre 2011 16:17
=C0 : = ruby-core@ruby-lang.org
Objet : [ruby-core:40969] Re: = [ruby-trunk - Feature #5555] rename #include? to = #includes?

I'm = personally willing to accept the "no third person singular" = rule at this point, given the history.

Yehuda = Katz
(ph) 718.877.1325

On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 4:14 AM, Andrew Grimm <andrew.j.grimm@gmail.com>= wrote:

Issue #5555 has been = updated by Andrew Grimm.

The spelling chosen was deliberate, = according to this 2001 email http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-= talk/18951

> > "responds_to?" probably makes = more sense to English speakers than
> > = "respond_to?".
>
> Maybe. But I'm Japanese. = Ruby is not English. It's the basic naming
> rule to = avoid third person singular form in the standard = libraries.
>
> you =3D Human.new
> if = you.respond_to?(:knock)
> ...
> = end
>
> buddies =3D member.collect{|x| = x.friend_of?(me)}
> = buddies.respond_to?(:select)

Such spelling also exists for many = other methods, such as String#start_with?

If the spelling of = include? were to be aliased, I'd recommend aliasing the spelling of all = such methods, such as start_with? . Failing to do so would be a far = greater inconsistency than include? versus = has_key?

----------------------------------------Feature #5555: rename #include? to #includes?
http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/5555

Aut= hor: Alexey Muranov
Status: Open
Priority: = Normal
Assignee:
Category:
Target version:

Shouldn't = the #include? method be renamed to #includes? ?
I think this will be = closer to correct English and consistent with #has_key? method (not = #have_key?).

--
http://redmine.ruby-lang.org

------=_NextPart_000_0029_01CCA159.DD404600--