Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from March 2022
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, M4Thread Previous | Thread Next