Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Rename eql? into eq? and not_eql? into not_eq? #93

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

casperisfine
Copy link

Fix: #92

I totally understand that this is a breaking API change but I figured it's worth a try.

Fix: dry-rb#92

I totally understand that this is a breaking API change
but I figured it's worth a try.
@dgutov
Copy link

dgutov commented Sep 27, 2022

Might not be the best alternative, since for example RSpec takes eq to mean ==.

But the only alternative I can suggest is the third person singular inflection: eqls? and not_eqls?.

@solnic
Copy link
Member

solnic commented Oct 1, 2022

How about a more verbose is_eql?(foo) and not_eql?(foo)

@dgutov
Copy link

dgutov commented Oct 1, 2022

How about a more verbose is_eql?(foo) and not_eql?(foo)

Sounds good to me.

@solnic
Copy link
Member

solnic commented Oct 9, 2022

Closing in favor of #98

@solnic solnic closed this Oct 9, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Status: Done
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Predicate#eql?(left, right) breaks lots of conventions
4 participants