Yes, unbelievable, but it's the first time that I am using `HaveItem()` function .
And now, I just was wondering if that function shouldn't be called `HasItem()` or `HaveItems()` -- in case, it could check for the existence of multiple items.
Well, i guess, it won't change in any case as that would introduce a breaking change to the API. Just wondering what native speakers are thinking about it (maybe I am wrong?)
cheers,
Tom
HaveItem()
- airsoftsoftwair
- Posts: 5446
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 2:33 pm
- Location: Germany
- Contact:
Re: HaveItem()
I guess it should be HasItem() but in questions HaveItem() would make sense too, e.g. "does the table have the item?"
-
- Posts: 475
- Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 5:15 pm
- Location: Waterville, Minnesota USA
Re: HaveItem()
In conjunction with "does", the question remains: "Does LolCat have a cheeseburger?" Andreas is right in this context. A valid response would be: "LolCat has a cheeseburger."
If you want to look crosseyed at weird sentence structure based on texting abbreviations, I'd recommend looking into the lolcatz programming language.
If you want to look crosseyed at weird sentence structure based on texting abbreviations, I'd recommend looking into the lolcatz programming language.
I'm on registered MorphOS using FlowStudio.
Re: HaveItem()
I guess only difference from understanding point of view is that HasItem can only mean if it has an item, while HaveItem could be interpreted as "Here, have an item", meaning HaveItem(A_table, B_item) could add B_item to A_table.
However, is there any scenario where command like this would make any sense? After all, we already have AddItem which does that.
But if there is some scenario where HaveItem could have use in that other interpretation, then maybe add HaveItem and HasItem both as doing the same thing now and recommend using HasItem, and then when one day HaveItem changes its meaning, then hopefully by that time everyone is already using HasItem.
But I doubt there is any need for alternative HaveItem interpretation.
Also, don't forget you could actually use: HasItem = HaveItem to keep using HasItem even now.
However, is there any scenario where command like this would make any sense? After all, we already have AddItem which does that.
But if there is some scenario where HaveItem could have use in that other interpretation, then maybe add HaveItem and HasItem both as doing the same thing now and recommend using HasItem, and then when one day HaveItem changes its meaning, then hopefully by that time everyone is already using HasItem.
But I doubt there is any need for alternative HaveItem interpretation.
Also, don't forget you could actually use: HasItem = HaveItem to keep using HasItem even now.
- airsoftsoftwair
- Posts: 5446
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 2:33 pm
- Location: Germany
- Contact:
Re: HaveItem()
Well, FWIW:
Code: Select all
- New: Added HasItem() as a more grammatical synonym for HaveItem()