Feature #5555: rename #include? to #includes?

• Status: Rejected
• Assignee: matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
• Target version: -

[alexeymuranov (Alexey Muranov)]

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?).

[shevegen (Robert A. Heiler)]

I am neutral on it, not pro, not con. But I think a simple alias could suffice here?

It is often a quite general question on english grammar too.

For instance, on class String I was using #starts_with? rather than #start_with?

But I think both should be equivalent.

"foo".starts_with? 'f' # => true
"foo".start_with? 'f' # => true

[now (Nikolai Weibull)]

On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 00:00, markus heiler [e-mail] wrote:

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?).

One needs both for every case to be covered.

[alexeymuranov (Alexey Muranov)]

Alias would be good enough for me. Thanks for comments.

[agrimm (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 = Human.new
if you.respond_to?(:knock)
...
end

buddies = 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?

[wycats (Yehuda Katz)]

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 [e-mail]:

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 = Human.new
if you.respond_to?(:knock)
...
end

buddies = 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

Author: 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

I agree.

Michel Demazure (French)

[e-mail]

De : Yehuda Katz [mailto:[e-mail]]
Envoyé : samedi 12 novembre 2011 16:17
À : [e-mail]
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 [e-mail]
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 = Human.new
if you.respond_to?(:knock)
...
end

buddies = 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

Author: 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

---

Feature #5555: rename #include? to #includes?

My personal preferences is #includes? but none of the std lib seems to match it.
I'd be all for a std lib include like
require 'english_grammar'
that creates the proper aliases :)

[alexeymuranov (Alexey Muranov)]

Andrew Grimm wrote:

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 = Human.new
if you.respond_to?(:knock)
...
end

buddies = 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?

Good explanation. The method names can also be read as #(does_it_)include?
However, #has_key? then needs to be renamed to or aliased as #have_key?.

I also like the anonymous suggestion to require 'english_grammar' :).

[mame (Yusuke Endoh)]

• Status changed from Open to Feedback
• Assignee set to matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
• Priority changed from Normal to 3

Hello,

2011/11/13 Alexey Muranov [e-mail]:

Good explanation.  The method names can also me viewed as #(does_it_)include?

I'm not sure but the rule seems Lisp's name convention?
Maybe it also came from Lisp (has-key-p).

However, #has_key? then needs to be renamed to or aliased as #have_key?.

Unak-san told me that there is another example: #is_a?.
I guess is_* and has_* are just two exceptions; they are accepted
idiomatic expressions. Do you really want #have_key? and #be_a?

I also like the anonymous suggestion to require 'english_grammar' :).

You can start by yourself with gem :-)

--
Yusuke Endoh [e-mail]

[matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto)]

• Status changed from Feedback to Rejected

The basic naming for methods in standard class libraries are:

• use basic form (include not includes)
• put question mark for predicates
• put bang mark for "dangerous" version of methods

"is_a" and "has_key" are exceptions. "is_a" (or "isa") used very often for inheritance in OO context.
"has_key" has already been deprecated by "key?"

Besides that, backward incompatibility introduced by renaming them would be unbearable.

Matz.

[alexeymuranov (Alexey Muranov)]

Thanks for the explanation, i didn't know about "key?".

The basic naming for methods in standard class libraries are:

• use basic form (include not includes)
• put question mark for predicates
• put bang mark for "dangerous" version of methods

Speaking of which, could we get an Array#shift!
It always confuses me how that one defies the rule.
K thanks bye.
-roger-

[now (Nikolai Weibull)]

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 15:47, Roger Pack [e-mail] wrote:

The basic naming for methods in standard class libraries are:

• use basic form (include not includes)
• put question mark for predicates
• put bang mark for "dangerous" version of methods

Speaking of which, could we get an Array#shift!
It always confuses me how that one defies the rule.

There’s no non-dangerous version of Array#shift, so it doesn’t defy the rules.

It always confuses me how that one defies the rule.

There’s no non-dangerous version of Array#shift, so it doesn’t defy the rules.

True, I just always reach for shift! since it makes more sense in my head.
-r

[cout (Paul Brannan)]

On Wed, 2012-04-25 at 05:24 +0900, Roger Pack wrote:

It always confuses me how that one defies the rule.

There’s no non-dangerous version of Array#shift, so it doesn’t defy the rules.

True, I just always reach for shift! since it makes more sense in my head.
-r

Do you try to call pop! as well? :)

Paul

Do you try to call pop! as well? :)

That sounds like a balloon! yes! pop!
(I suppose in answer to your question, for some reason I don't use
pop, but I would probably reach for a pop! :)

[astrokitty (Steve Bachmair)]

The include?, start_with?, etc. issue is one of my very few gripes about this most beautiful of all languages. Is this the last word on this?

I'm puzzled at the the no third-person-singular naming convention, since 90% of my variables are in the third-person singular. I've never once used a variable called "you", nor have I ever written code that looks like does_it.include? What I have written is a million lines of code like if string.start_with? char and if object.respond_to? method, which would read a lot better as string.starts_with? char and object.responds_to? method.

I can't see how I would ever want start_with?, end_with?, respond_to?, etc. in the second person; every time I've ever used these I've called them on a third-person-singular variable. The only real case I see for non-third-person-singular would be third-person-plural (which happens to be the same a second person) on collections:

things = []
if things.include? thing

list_of_things = []
if list_of_things.includes? thing

Obviously, actually changing the method names is a non-starter for compatibility reasons, but I see no downside to aliasing new third-person singular forms to their second-person equivalents. Then we could just write whatever is most readable in a given circumstance (which will usually be the third-person form). If there's really no chance at this change I might take a stab at the english_grammar gem, but I think it'd be a lot better in the language itself.

[stomar (Marcus Stollsteimer)]

Steve Bachmair wrote:

Then we could just write whatever is most readable in a given circumstance (which will usually be the third-person form).

I just wanted to point out that "usual" depends: I almost always use names in pluralized form for arrays or hashes, like files, users, options, ..., instead of list, my_hash, or similar. And colors.includes? reads at least as bad as line.start_with?. (So, renaming those methods - which is what this issue is about - would not really help).

[shyouhei (Shyouhei Urabe)]

Please stop beating this dead horse.