The most recommended way of naming methods in Ruby

ruby-talk
1

Rubists,

What is the most recommended (or the conventional) way of naming methods in
Ruby? Do they need to be verb-like or noun-like? In other language like C++,
methods are supposed to be verbs because they are dimmed as messages sent to
the object. I have asked this because methods in Ruby are also objects.

···

---
Edmond (ceekays)
Software Developer | Baobab Health Trust (http://www.baobabhealth.org/) |
Malawi

Cell: +265 999 465 137 | +265 881 234 717

*I wish you a Merry Christmas and a Prosperous New Year 2011!!**
*

2

verbs_underscore_separated
predicate?
dangerous_mutator!

···

On Jan 18, 2011, at 00:16 , Edmond Kachale wrote:

What is the most recommended (or the conventional) way of naming methods in
Ruby? Do they need to be verb-like or noun-like? In other language like C++,
methods are supposed to be verbs because they are dimmed as messages sent to
the object. I have asked this because methods in Ruby are also objects.

3

What is the most recommended (or the conventional) way of naming methods in
Ruby? Do they need to be verb-like or noun-like? In other language like C++,
methods are supposed to be verbs because they are dimmed as messages sent to
the object. I have asked this because methods in Ruby are also objects.

Not exactly. There was a lengthy discussion here about whether
methods are objects or not. Strictly speaking they are not, but you
can obtain an object representing a bound or unbound method.

*I wish you a Merry Christmas and a Prosperous New Year 2011!!**

ed.update_signature!

Cheers

robert

···

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Edmond Kachale <edmond.kachale@baobabhealth.org> wrote:

--
remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end
http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/

4

Well, I can't speak for Rubyists in general, but I aim for the following:

- methods that do something should be verbs:
  obj.calculate
  obj.set_name
  obj.get_date

- methods that are accessors (or behave like them) should be nouns:
  foo = obj.name
  puts obj.date
  obj.calculation

- Interrogative methods get phrased as questions:
  obj.date_today?
  obj.name?
  obj.calculation_done?

- methods that modify the object (or caller) itself, should be exclamations:
  obj.truncate!
  obj.remove_name!
  obj.date! "Julian" # I wish I could do obj.date "Julian"!, instead. Ah, well.

···

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Edmond Kachale <edmond.kachale@baobabhealth.org> wrote:

Rubists,

What is the most recommended (or the conventional) way of naming methods in
Ruby? Do they need to be verb-like or noun-like? In other language like C++,
methods are supposed to be verbs because they are dimmed as messages sent to
the object. I have asked this because methods in Ruby are also objects.

--
Phillip Gawlowski

Though the folk I have met,
(Ah, how soon!) they forget
When I've moved on to some other place,
There may be one or two,
When I've played and passed through,
Who'll remember my song or my face.

5

> *I wish you a Merry Christmas and a Prosperous New Year 2011!!**

ed.update_signature!

Lol!

*>> ed.updated?

···

2011/1/18 Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com>

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Edmond Kachale > <edmond.kachale@baobabhealth.org> wrote:

true
ed.signature**.datetime
Mon Jan 03 08:00:25 0200 2011

*
That's what happens when one is using offline mail clients. My offline mail
client for some reason is getting an old signature.

---
Edmond(ceekays)
Software Developer | Baobab Health Trust (http://www.baobabhealth.org/\) |
Malawi

Cell: +265 999 465 137 | +265 881 234 717*
**
An old dog does not hunt because of speed, but his endurance of the heart.*
*
*

6

- Interrogative methods get phrased as questions:
  obj.date_today?
  obj.name?
  obj.calculation_done?

As you said; but I would only use this interrogative form myself if the method returned true/false. That's how it works in core Ruby?

···

--
"You can have my Unix system when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers."
    -- Cal Keegan

7

I think the conventional wisdom is that this should only be done only if there is a matching non-mutating method that has the name without the exclamation mark.

Gary Wright

···

On Jan 18, 2011, at 7:30 AM, Phillip Gawlowski wrote:

- methods that modify the object (or caller) itself, should be exclamations:
obj.truncate!
obj.remove_name!
obj.date! "Julian" # I wish I could do obj.date "Julian"!, instead. Ah, well.

8

What is this! Java?

obj.name # get!
obj.date = different_date # set!

···

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Phillip Gawlowski < cmdjackryan@googlemail.com> wrote:

obj.set_name
obj.get_date

9

It's more relaxed since you can use any object reference as boolean
value. For example, you may do

class X
  attr_accessor :name
  alias name? name
end

if the test should return a trueish value if the name is set (actually
not nil and not false).

Kind regards

robert

···

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Shadowfirebird <shadowfirebird@gmail.com> wrote:

- Interrogative methods get phrased as questions:
obj.date_today?
obj.name?
obj.calculation_done?

As you said; but I would only use this interrogative form myself if the method returned true/false. That's how it works in core Ruby?

--
remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end
http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/

10

Someone may give more info on why it should be like this:

···

Le 18 janvier 2011 22:01:11 UTC+2, Gary Wright <gwtmp01@mac.com> a écrit :

On Jan 18, 2011, at 7:30 AM, Phillip Gawlowski wrote:
>
> - methods that modify the object (or caller) itself, should be
exclamations:
> obj.truncate!
> obj.remove_name!
> obj.date! "Julian" # I wish I could do obj.date "Julian"!, instead. Ah,
well.

I think the conventional wisdom is that this should only be done only if
there is a matching non-mutating method that has the name without the
exclamation mark.

---
Edmond
Software Developer | Baobab Health Trust (http://www.baobabhealth.org/\) |
Malawi

Cell: +265 999 465 137 | +265 881 234 717*
**
An old dog does not hunt because of speed, but his endurance of the heart.*

11

It's more relaxed since you can use any object reference as boolean
value. For example, you may do

class X
  attr_accessor :name
  alias name? name
end

if the test should return a trueish value if the name is set (actually
not nil and not false).

What, "classname = Myclass.name?"? Ew. Sorry, I wouldn't be comfortable with that. Where in the core Ruby classes does that happen?

···

--
If you think last Tuesday was a drag, wait till you see what happens tomorrow!

12

I think you left something off. Anyway...

Here is a great explanation of the '!' naming convention:

<http://dablog.rubypal.com/2007/8/15/bang-methods-or-danger-will-rubyist&gt;

I was going to try to explain this but why bother when David Black has already done a great job?

Gary Wright

···

On Jan 19, 2011, at 3:13 AM, Edmond Kachale wrote:

Le 18 janvier 2011 22:01:11 UTC+2, Gary Wright <gwtmp01@mac.com> a écrit :

On Jan 18, 2011, at 7:30 AM, Phillip Gawlowski wrote:

- methods that modify the object (or caller) itself, should be

exclamations:

obj.truncate!
obj.remove_name!
obj.date! "Julian" # I wish I could do obj.date "Julian"!, instead. Ah,

well.

I think the conventional wisdom is that this should only be done only if
there is a matching non-mutating method that has the name without the
exclamation mark.

Someone may give more info on why it should be like this:

13

I am not sure what you are hinting at. Clarification - just in case:
I did *not* redefine the class's name in the example above.

Cheers

robert

···

On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Shadowfirebird <shadowfirebird@gmail.com> wrote:

It's more relaxed since you can use any object reference as boolean
value. For example, you may do

class X
attr_accessor :name
alias name? name
end

if the test should return a trueish value if the name is set (actually
not nil and not false).

What, "classname = Myclass.name?"? Ew. Sorry, I wouldn't be comfortable with that. Where in the core Ruby classes does that happen?

--
remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end
http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/

14

I like you on this.

···

2011/1/19 Gary Wright <gwtmp01@mac.com>

On Jan 19, 2011, at 3:13 AM, Edmond Kachale wrote:

> Le 18 janvier 2011 22:01:11 UTC+2, Gary Wright <gwtmp01@mac.com> a écrit
:
>
>> On Jan 18, 2011, at 7:30 AM, Phillip Gawlowski wrote:
>>> obj.remove_name!
>>> obj.date! "Julian" # I wish I could do obj.date "Julian"!, instead. Ah,
>> well.
>>
>> I think the conventional wisdom is that this should only be done only if
>> there is a matching non-mutating method that has the name without the
>> exclamation mark.
>
>
> Someone may give more info on why it should be like this:
>

I think you left something off. Anyway...

Here is a great explanation of the '!' naming convention:

<http://dablog.rubypal.com/2007/8/15/bang-methods-or-danger-will-rubyist&gt;

I was going to try to explain this but why bother when David Black has
already done a great job?

---
Edmond
Software Developer | Baobab Health Trust (http://www.baobabhealth.org/\) |
Malawi

Cell: +265 999 465 137 | +265 881 234 717*
**
An old dog does not hunt because of speed, but his endurance of the heart.*
*
*