I shall agree that most natural languages have a grammar far complex than the required to communicate the important things of life, and would say that tweaking it a little bit we should not having this thread. But is the nature of system guided by humans often is not to correct the core problem, instead to patch it :P. So... leaving chat aside... going to the matter:
The thing that makes wonder: is that the "able" convention already works for me, instead with the "er" convention i get the feeling that is more difficult to employ it on 100% of the times (you know, it was kind of hard to read "Stringer" as a meaningful name on my early days on golang, i would rather thing that "Stringer" is the object that "strings" things, instead of something that can be transformed into a char sequence) So the question i made to myself is, why use another convention is out there? if there is already one that works, in terms to be more "universally" readable. I guess we all agree that naming is trully important and often is relative to the observer. That is why i try to feel that using "able" or "er" is a question of perspective, i mean, how do you see the actors in the system. "able" passive, "er" active (as i stated on the first mail of this thread) *Very important disclaimer*: I do not try to be hard on the guideline, instead i try to adhere as a good citizen of a community of practices. I may have to reflect that after many years in java, perhaps my mind gets a little fixed to use "able"... i mean, we are beigns of habits, so it could happen to me implying that i may need a mind mender, i'm totally mendable by the way :P. Or perhaps the right approach it to embrace both conventions and employ them according to convenience. (:+1:) Greetings V El jue., 17 ene. 2019 a las 19:40, Rob Pike (<r...@golang.org>) escribió: > It depends on the nature of the verb (method) and whether it's being used > to refer to the subject or the object, whether it is transitive or > intransitive, and all the rest of that messy human grammar nonsense. Which > is why trying to align the with justifications to English grammar is a > fool's errand. Instead we make it a Go-specific recommendation, informed by > not bound by English rules. > > Guidelines, not hard rules. io.Reader is not a English word. > > -rob > > > On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 6:48 AM Jakob Borg <ja...@kastelo.net> wrote: > >> On 16 Jan 2019, at 15:42, Victor Giordano <vitucho3...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> As far i can get to understand the english language (i'm not a native >> speaker), the "er" seems to denotes or describe things in a more "active >> way" (the thing that they actually do by itself), and the "able" describes >> things in a more "passive way" (the thing that you can "ask it/his/her" to >> do). Do you find this appreciation correct? >> >> >> This was a mental stumbling block for me for a long time when I started >> out with Go. For me, the "Reader" is the one who calls Read(), so an >> io.Reader seemed like the opposite of what I wanted. I would have better >> understood it as io.Readee. It works out better if I see the Reader as some >> sort of intermediate entity that affects reads on whatever the underlying >> thing is you want to read from… Or if I see it as just an >> interface-indicating nonsense suffix, like a capital-I prefix… >> >> //jb >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "golang-nuts" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
