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
