develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from March 2022

Re: Pre-RFC: builtin:: functions for detecting numbers vs strings

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Martijn Lievaart
Date:
March 14, 2022 17:24
Subject:
Re: Pre-RFC: builtin:: functions for detecting numbers vs strings
Message ID:
e29113f7-e45e-4cc3-ffd5-15200fc25acb@rtij.nl
Op 14-03-2022 om 11:53 schreef Ovid via perl5-porters:
> 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()
>

For me as a non-native, was_initialized_as_number() seems to me to be 
the best purveyor of the meaning intented. So do use the past tense afaic.


HTH,

M4



Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About