> > areBlockBracketsLinedUp - reads well with the past-tense phrasing
Technically, that is in present tense but using the passive voice. Passive voice is used to emphasize who receives an action, instead of who performs the action. El sáb., 14 sept. 2019 a las 16:07, Christopher Fuhrman (< [email protected]>) escribió: > Crazy idea inspired by Spanish: > > ¿even? > > On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 04:38 ducasse <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On 13 Sep 2019, at 20:52, Tim Mackinnon <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> I agree with Ben’s reaction below , however the point that ? ! could be >> repurposed for something if they weren’t special characters is a good one. >> Maybe there are other usages we are missing, and that’s the point I guess. >> >> >> Exactly. >> I think that it would be nice to think a bit. >> I like the idea that I do not have to read the code to understand if a >> method is a predicate. >> >> odd? >> even? >> >> Stef >> >> >> Tim >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 13 Sep 2019, at 17:41, Ben Coman <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 15:10, ducasse <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> > On 11 Sep 2019, at 04:07, James Foster <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> > Would use of ? and ! in unary/keyword selectors be convention or >>> somehow required? If simply convention, then we should start with renaming >>> testing methods to be named is* or has*. >>> > flag1 := anInteger even. “not good" >>> >> >> Agreed. That could "almost" be construed as converting a 3 to a 2 or 4. >> >> >> > flag2 := anInteger isEven. “better" >>> >> >> Agreed. It reads well. >> >> >> > flag3 := anInteger even?. “how much better?” >>> >> >> For me, this doesn't read as well as flag2, but even though there is some >> redundancy, for me a combination reads well... >> flag3a := anInteger isEven? >> Perhaps if "?"==>Boolean was a strong convention then there could be a >> check when the value is returned rather than when it is used (or would that >> complicate other things?) >> >> >> > flag4 := #(1 2 3) includes?: 2. “how much better?” >>> >> >> My first impression is "yuck!", but then I think... "maybe" if there was >> a definite benefit (i.e. optimization) from strong guarantees about the >> return value being Boolean. >> >> >> >>> >>> I think that I would use ? mainly for unary message >>> >>> Now I’m sure that if you look carefully some people use >>> >>> include >>> for the action >>> includes >>> for the tests >>> >>> I took include as an example and this is super not intention revealing. >>> >>> >> lineUpBlockBrackets >>> >>> lineUpBlockBrackets? >>> Now I will rewrite them all as shouldLineUpBlockBrackets or >>> isLineUpBlockBrackets and to me for unary message ? makes it a lot better. >>> >> >> btw, some alternatives... >> doBlockBracketsLineUp - reads well but "do" is already a loaded word >> areBlockBracketsLinedUp - reads well with the past-tense phrasing >> >> cheers -ben >> >> >> -- > Christopher Fuhrman, P.Eng., PhD > > *Professeur au Département de génie logiciel et des technologies de > l'informationÉTS (École de technologie supérieure)* > > http://profs.etsmtl.ca/cfuhrman > +1 514 396 8638 > *L'ÉTS est une constituante de l'Université du Québec* >
