First off, let me say, "thank you, thank you, thank you". All of this
is wonderfully welcome improvements for us at Happy Camper.
On Aug 8, 2008, at 2:06 AM, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
This extensive support of Ruby naming may be going too far. I'm
really looking for opinions on this, to see whether it's too much.
In general my primary goal was to allow users to use either straight-
up Java names or various gradations of Ruby names, all the way to
the most Ruby-like = or ? underscored names. So those extreme cases
work and all intermediate cases work. But is it excessive?
In all the time I've been doing JI work, I've never wanted to write a
method name that wasn't the canonical Ruby style name. So, for me and
the people I've been working with, I don't think any intermediary name
is really wanted or needed. Ideally we would use the Ruby name in
every case and just pretend that setFoo on the Java class/interface
is really just written as foo=. So you would get my vote on making
concrete classes work like interfaces with regards to overriding a
method. I do agree that this presents some pitfalls if you implement
both a foo= and a setFoo method, although I would say you can do lots
of stupid things in Ruby and this would be no different.
David Koontz
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
