I disagree with this; I think the inflections are important. They're just messy right now. I don't think it's an arduous task to fix them, and I don't think it's unreasonable to take the stance of "Rails can't possibly include every inflection by default." My problem with the current inflections is that it seems like they *were* trying to include every inflection. Now we've got a long list of inflections based on exceptions and irregularities, most of which rarely see the light of day in any Rails application. But they're frozen, so it's difficult to get Rails core to accept fixes.
Looking over grammatical rules, the actual list of inflections could be extremely short: https://gist.github.com/3145080 I could be missing something here, but those cover the regular plurals and a couple of irregularities that will show up in Rails apps enough to warrant definition. More irregularities *could* be argued, but personally I think the stance should be that most irregularities should be defined in the user's initializer (which is what Rails core tells people now anyways). But telling people right in the documentation to *fix errant inflections* in their initializer? Yes, let's admit we're wrong. That's noble. But let's fix it, too. On Thursday, July 19, 2012 4:53:43 AM UTC-7, paulie wrote: > > I personally don't like them at all. I wish that all the names of > controllers/routes/models were unchanged so I wouldn't have to keep > deciding whether I needed to pluralize. I remember spending too much > time trying to straighten out a scaffold I created named "series". It > created a model named "Serie"! I shouldn't have to spend energy > figuring that out. It should use the exact name I give it. > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 8:41 PM, davidcelis <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yesterday, I opened a GitHub Issue about moving Rails inflections to an > > initializer. The idea wasn't received well, understandably, as > generating a > > large initializer with new Rails apps is pretty unappealing. However, > the > > core members seemed open to the discussion of alternatives continuing > here. > > > > For those of you not in the know, inflections (the defined rules for > > singularization/pluralization) in Rails are currently frozen. What this > > means is that most pull requests submitted that add, remove, or change > > inflections are closed and not merged. The reasoning behind this is to > avoid > > breaking existing applications that depend on these inflections, even if > > they are errant. People are advised to fix (yes, fix) these inflections > > themselves in their inflections initializer. > > > > In my opinion, with a major 4.0 release coming up, inflections should be > > unfrozen and fixed/cleaned up. There is a lot that is bad in this file, > and > > I don't think fear of breaking existing apps is a good reason to freeze > > mistakes. People should read the CHANGELOG when updating. They should > read > > the upgrade guides. It's not that hard to redefine the inflection you > need > > in that initializer, and the current inflections are based mostly around > > exceptions to grammatical rules rather than the rules themselves. > > > > If people want specifics, I've written a post about this: > > > > > http://davidcelis.com/blog/2012/07/18/the-current-state-of-rails-inflections/ > > > > I'm curious as to what others think. I'd like to help make this a better > > framework, and I've heard a lot of complaints from personal colleagues > about > > how messy the inflections are. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rubyonrails-talk/-/MHVUP-Uyz2kJ. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
