Rename predicate #respond_to into #responds_to

[CandyFet]

PR for issue 73

[solnic]

How about interface?(:foo) - it would be consistent with dry-types where we have Types.Interface(:foo)

[CandyFet]

How about interface?(:foo) - it would be consistent with dry-types where we have Types.Interface(:foo)

I am not very familiar with dry gems yet. But i'll look deeply and will add code that ensures successful behaviour with Types.Interface

[dgutov]

@solnic Do you mean to suggest using interface? as the name instead of responds_to??

It might work (especially it it's going to accept multiple arguments). responds_to? is a much more obvious name, though.

[flash-gordon]

IMO, this only adds confusion. The ruby convention uses the infinitive form (has_key? -> have_key?). Either interface? or method? would work I think

[solnic]

I'd be OK with either interface? or method? too.

[dgutov]

IMO, this only adds confusion. The ruby convention uses the infinitive form (has_key? -> have_key?)

I'm following the precedent made by includes?:

dry-logic/lib/dry/logic/predicates.rb

Lines 184 to 192 in 9e6d776

	def includes?(value, input)
	if input.respond_to?(:include?)
	input.include?(value)
	else
	false
	end
	rescue TypeError
	false
	end

Either interface? or method? would work I think

I don't have a strong opinion (anything would be better than the status quo), but someone might mistake method? for implying the use of Module#method_defined?.

[solnic]

Ah yeah, I guess includes? wasn't a good choice either 😬

[dgutov]

At this point (two years later), I'd say any choice is good enough. As long as it's a change. :-)

Though I guess this particular PR might limit itself to adding a new predicate (in a minor version), for you to remove the obsolete one in the new major (?) version.

[solnic]

I'm gonna go with interface? because we already have Types.Interface in dry-types so this would be consistent.

[solnic]

Closing after all as this was done via #99