On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 15:10, 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"
>
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
