Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from March 2022
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022, at 11:24, Martijn Lievaart wrote: > 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 > 2c: How about born_as_XXX()? The adjective "birth" has some precedent: It's used by GNU coreutils stat(1) in reports on file times, and in the associated man page. Shorter than "was_initialized", and the past tense is implied.Thread Previous | Thread Next