ruby-core@ruby-lang.org archive (unofficial mirror)
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: keithrbennett@gmail.com
To: ruby-core@ruby-lang.org
Subject: [ruby-core:95287] [Ruby master Feature#16244] Add a Time#before? and Time#after? method
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2019 06:52:46 +0000 (UTC)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <redmine.journal-81967.20191009065245.6d7cb5e77f0988d4@ruby-lang.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: redmine.issue-16244.20191007164739@ruby-lang.org

Issue #16244 has been updated by keithrbennett (Keith Bennett).


I think the answer to the question 'which is clearer, more obvious, etc.' cannot be answered objectively. Sawa's example is evidence; he sees his preferred expressions as clearer; I find them quite a bit *less* clear. It all depends on how the person is in the habit of thinking.

Some people will think of the comparison in terms of mathematical language and would need to mentally transform a 'before' into '<', requiring more effort. Others are the opposite.

I will refer to '<' and '>' as the *symbol approach* and *mathematical language*, and 'before' and 'after' as the *word approach* and *natural language*. Here are some arguments on both sides (all have merit for at least some people):

1) Time is like any other scalar value, so the symbol approach is natural, while the word approach makes this less self evident, as words can define relationships far wider than scalar relationships.

2) The symbol approach uses only 1 character and is easier to miss visually.
    vs.
The symbol approach is visually unique and easier to spot than a word.

3) Adding too many aliases to the language degrades the language, requiring more to learn in order to understand preexisting Ruby code; also, using multiple ways to refer to the same thing hides the fact that it is the same thing underneath.
    vs.
Adding certain aliases improves the language, enabling expressing intent more clearly

4) Adding these aliases are a slippery slope; once we add them, will we want to add many more Rails-y aliases?
    vs.
Adding these aliases is not a slippery slope; these are targeted aliases for mathematical symbols and not just alternate human language.

-----

Also, Jeremy, I agree with everything you said except that your suggestion to add the aliases oneself only very slightly addresses Steven's need; unless these aliases are part of the language, he's likely to encounter a lot of resistance to using them in a shared code base.


----------------------------------------
Feature #16244: Add a Time#before? and Time#after? method
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/16244#change-81967

* Author: stevendaniels (Steven Daniels)
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee: 
* Target version: 
----------------------------------------
Comparing times using `>` and`<` can be pretty confusing.

I'd like to propose `Time#before?` and `Time#after?`  methods for aliasing `Time#<` and `Time#>`

These method aliases would make the code more readable. :)

Current syntax:

``` ruby
if current_time < expiration_at
  # do stuff
end

if birthday > thirteen_years_ago
  # you need a parent's permission to sign up
end
```


What I'd like to see added:

``` ruby
if current_time.before? expiration_at
  # do stuff
end


if birthday.after? thirteen_years_ago
  # you need a parent's permission to sign up
end
```
 

Thanks for your consideration!



-- 
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

  parent reply	other threads:[~2019-10-09  6:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <redmine.issue-16244.20191007164739@ruby-lang.org>
2019-10-07 16:47 ` [ruby-core:95260] [Ruby master Feature#16244] Add a Time#before? and Time#after? method stevendaniels88
2019-10-07 17:07 ` [ruby-core:95261] " merch-redmine
2019-10-07 19:43 ` [ruby-core:95263] " stevendaniels88
2019-10-07 23:34 ` [ruby-core:95273] " sawadatsuyoshi
2019-10-08 23:26 ` [ruby-core:95284] " stevendaniels88
2019-10-09  6:52 ` keithrbennett [this message]
2019-12-13 18:30 ` [ruby-core:96221] " anastasia.k.stowers
2019-12-15  0:59 ` [ruby-core:96241] " nobu

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-list from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

  List information: https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/community/mailing-lists/

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=redmine.journal-81967.20191009065245.6d7cb5e77f0988d4@ruby-lang.org \
    --to=ruby-core@ruby-lang.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).