+1 for #shouldXxx I recall I use it a lot too, and #isXxx where that reads better but am struggling for examples.

Tim

Sent from my iPhone

On 13 Sep 2019, at 02:37, Mariano Martinez Peck <marianopeck@gmail.com> wrote:



On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 4:10 AM ducasse <stepharo@netcourrier.com> wrote:


> On 11 Sep 2019, at 04:07, James Foster <Smalltalk@JGFoster.net> wrote:
>
> Would use of ? and ! in unary/keyword selectors be convention or somehow required? If simply convention, then we should start with renaming testing methods to be named is* or has*.
>       flag1 := anInteger even.                ���not good"
>       flag2 := anInteger isEven.      ���better"
>       flag3 := anInteger even?.       ���how much better?���
>       flag4 := #(1 2 3) includes?: 2. ���how much better?���

I think that I would use ? mainly for unary message

Now I���m sure that if you look carefully some people use

        include
                for the action
        includes
                for the tests

I took include as an example and this is super not intention revealing.

>> lineUpBlockBrackets

        lineUpBlockBrackets?
        Now I will rewrite them all as shouldLineUpBlockBrackets or isLineUpBlockBrackets and to me for unary message ? makes it a lot better.


Hi Stef,

I have been facing this ambiguity a lot too. And my workaround, most of the times, was also to prefer the "question" method with #should. #is just doesn't sound right in my cases, but #should does sound good in most of them. I would still like to find a better one, but for the moment, in my recent years, I am stuck with #should.

--
Mariano Martinez Peck