+1 for #shouldXxx I recall I use it a lot too, and #isXxx where that reads better but am struggling for examples.
Tim Sent from my iPhone > On 13 Sep 2019, at 02:37, Mariano Martinez Peck <marianop...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 4:10 AM ducasse <steph...@netcourrier.com> wrote: >> >> >> > On 11 Sep 2019, at 04:07, James Foster <smallt...@jgfoster.net> 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" >> > flag2 := anInteger isEven. “better" >> > flag3 := anInteger even?. “how much better?” >> > flag4 := #(1 2 3) includes?: 2. “how much better?” >> >> 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. >> > > Hi Stef, > > I have been facing this ambiguity a lot too. And my workaround, most of the > times, was also to prefer the "question" method with #should. #is just > doesn't sound right in my cases, but #should does sound good in most of them. > I would still like to find a better one, but for the moment, in my recent > years, I am stuck with #should. > > -- > Mariano Martinez Peck > Email: marianop...@gmail.com > Twitter: @MartinezPeck > LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/mariano-martinez-peck > Blog: https://marianopeck.wordpress.com/
