[Grok-dev] Naming of grok.provides

[Philipp von Weitershausen]

Jan-Wijbrand Kolman wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 8:57 AM, Thomas Lotze <tl at gocept.com> wrote:
>> Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
>>
>>> Sure, but we have grok.require() as well and that sounds just as
>>> imperative. I don't think we have to be too anal about finding the right
>>> grammar for these things if the goal is making their *meaning* more
>>> obvious. grok.register_for() is by all means better to understand than
>>> grok.provides(). grok.registered_for() would work too and isn't
>>> imperative.
>> Taking into account all that's been said in this thread, I'm now
>> personally in favor of "register_for" and given the absence of further
>> objections, will implement it as soon as possible.
> 
> (Sorry for the late reponse)
> 
> What's your take on Kit's "registers_for" suggestion? I'd be in favor
> of that. Not being religious about it though.

I said I didn't want to get anal about grammar, but... apart from the 
fact that I wonder "who registers" when I read "registers_for()", I 
think people will likely forget to write the 's' and wonder what's going on.