Re: Array and Enum: Elements or Objects?

On May 13, 2011, at 11:45 AM, Hugh Sasse wrote:

> Before you put this work in, I'd be inclined to ask: why is this a =
problem?
> Are you seeing some possible form of confusion?  Just reading this =
paragraph
> and not refreshing my memory of the docs, I'd tend to only distinguish =
between
> elements and objects for things like Array#uniq where non-nil elements =
are
> objects.  Otherwise, a variety of word use tends to make English flow =
better.
> Why does English have another word for "walrus"?  Searching for=20
> synonyms improve writing
> produces a lot of relevant results.  Repetitive word choice seems to =
be
> widely considered a fault.=20

Consistency is very important in technical documentation. Using synonyms =
introduces ambiguity because it often isn't clear when the synonym is =
being used for no particular reason or when it is being used to indicate =
a distinctly different technical meaning.

That being said, I think 'element' is an appropriate term to use when =
referring to an object stored in a container of some sort.  Using =
'element' emphasizes the context.  So when referring to the =
container/containee role 'element' is appropriate but when the =
container/containee role is irrelevant, then 'object' is OK.  So I would =
encourage the use of both terms as long as the usage is consistent and =
not just reflective of different authors choices.

I also think it is completely appropriate to refer to 'nil' as an =
object.  Everything that has methods is an object in Ruby: nil, true, =
false, fixnum, symbols, etc.  I know that some people like to introduce =
a dichotomy between objects that can be referenced with syntactical =
sugar and those that can't but I think that just confuses things.

Gary Wright=