Include/s, contain/s

ruby-talk
1

Hi

I would appreciate to add includes? and contains?,
because thats the default usage - and better English

thanks
Opti

2

I would appreciate to add includes? and contains?,
because thats the default usage - and better English

This has always bugged me, too, and for once I did the sensible thing and looked to see if anyone had raised an issue for it.

They did, five years ago. It was rejected and the reasons are not awful ones: Feature #5555: rename #include? to #includes? - Ruby master - Ruby Issue Tracking System

TL;DR: a general rule to avoid third person singular. (although, ahem, `has_key?`)

Click here to view Company Information and Confidentiality Notice.<http://www.jameshall.co.uk/index.php/small-print/email-disclaimer&gt;

3

Hi!
I thought Ruby allows "many ways" ?
It wouldn't hurt if there ware these ...s added too all that methods!
- everybody knows it's the same
- you don't have to use it, if you don't like it.

It's more annoying that often there are very different names for the same method. In this cases you don't know (by expection) that it's the same.

Opti

···

On 2016-11-18 14:51, Andy Jones wrote:

I would appreciate to add includes? and contains?,
because thats the default usage - and better English

This has always bugged me, too, and for once I did the sensible thing and looked to see if anyone had raised an issue for it.

They did, five years ago. It was rejected and the reasons are not awful ones: Feature #5555: rename #include? to #includes? - Ruby master - Ruby Issue Tracking System

TL;DR: a general rule to avoid third person singular. (although, ahem, `has_key?`)

4

Well, sure. I don't disagree with you. But apparently the "third person singular" is a rule just like "you get a bang on dangerous methods only if there is a less dangerous one" is a rule. ::shrug::

···

-----Original Message-----
From: ruby-talk [mailto:ruby-talk-bounces@ruby-lang.org] On Behalf Of Die
Optimisten
Sent: 18 November 2016 2:16 pm
To: ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org
Subject: Re: include/s, contain/s

On 2016-11-18 14:51, Andy Jones wrote:
>> I would appreciate to add includes? and contains?,
>> because thats the default usage - and better English
> This has always bugged me, too, and for once I did the sensible thing and
looked to see if anyone had raised an issue for it.
>
> They did, five years ago. It was rejected and the reasons are not awful
ones: Feature #5555: rename #include? to #includes? - Ruby master - Ruby Issue Tracking System
>
> TL;DR: a general rule to avoid third person singular. (although, ahem,
`has_key?`)
Hi!
I thought Ruby allows "many ways" ?
It wouldn't hurt if there ware these ...s added too all that methods!
- everybody knows it's the same
- you don't have to use it, if you don't like it.

It's more annoying that often there are very different names for the
same method. In this cases you don't know (by expection) that it's the same.

Opti

Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-talk-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-talk&gt;

Click here to view Company Information and Confidentiality Notice.<http://www.jameshall.co.uk/index.php/small-print/email-disclaimer&gt;