Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from March 2022
On Monday, 14 March 2022, 06:37:26 CET, Darren Duncan <darren@darrenduncan.net> wrote: > I made good name proposals already: > > - is_canonically_a_number() > - is_canonically_a_string() > - is_canonically_a_boolean() Naming is hard. Very hard. It's even harder when many people are non-native English speakers. I'm a native English speaker and a writer and it wasn't clear to me that "canonically" is appropriate here. I hit dictionary.com (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/canonically) and not a single definition appears to fit the meaning of this as I understand it. You could check other dictionaries, such as Merriam-Webster, Collins, etc., and again, canonically doesn't quite seem to fit (Collins seem the closest to what you're saying https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/canonical) The most accurate description I can think of is something like: was_initialized_as_number() But we don't do past-tense, so perhaps the slightly awkward: is_initialized_as_number() I *think* this is: * Accurate * Non-native speakers will already know "Initialized" * Long and cumbersome enough to be annoying :( I'd welcome something better, but I can't think of anything. (I also thought "is_declared_as_number()", but that feels subtly wrong to me) Best, Ovid -- IT consulting, training, specializing in Perl, databases, and agile development http://www.allaroundtheworld.fr/. Buy my book! - http://bit.ly/beginning_perlThread Previous | Thread Next