Thursday, February 15, 2018
Why do I see includes often named with the suffix "able"? Is this a naming convention that's being utilized? I also see other variations being used, such as "ed", but mostly it seems to be "able". I'm currently refactoring code and would like to understand this more so I can possibly adopt the approach in my own projects.
-- An example is the following from @dhh in his new videos he's been posting on Youtube here.
class MessagesController < ApplicationController
include SetRecordable, BucketScoped
# ...
endThanks!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rubyonrails-talk/d79cfb72-a87c-4779-b8e6-51e377db7fc1%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment