This project is archived and is in readonly mode.

#1351 ✓resolved
James Adam

Pluralize doesn't handle uncountable words in a sentence

Reported by James Adam | November 10th, 2008 @ 05:08 PM | in 2.x

Given the following rules:

Inflector.inflections do |inflect|
  inflect.uncountable 'equipment'

I would expect "sports equipment".pluralize to return "sports equipment", but instead it returns "sports equipments". This is because the pluralize method only checks for uncountable terms where the whole string is flagged as uncountable.

Patch with test attached.

Comments and changes to this ticket

  • Daniel Schierbeck

    Daniel Schierbeck November 14th, 2008 @ 01:36 PM

    • Tag changed from inflector, pluralize, uncountable to inflector, patch, pluralize, uncountable

    When you write words = phrase.to_s.dup.split(" "), it seems that dup is redundant, and adds an unnecessary extra memory consumption. split is not destructive, and can safely be called on phrase.to_s.

  • James Adam

    James Adam November 14th, 2008 @ 01:43 PM

    Updated patch to avoid using dup

  • James Adam

    James Adam November 14th, 2008 @ 01:45 PM

    Great point Daniel

    I think the dup was only there as a hold-over from the previous implementation. I'll amend the patch now.

    Thanks again,


    On 14 Nov 2008, at 13:36, Lighthouse wrote:

  • Daniel Schierbeck

    Daniel Schierbeck November 14th, 2008 @ 02:20 PM

    +1, with the latest change, this looks like an elegant solution.

  • DHH

    DHH November 16th, 2008 @ 03:13 PM

    Hmm, pluralize(word) intends to me that it's about pluralizing a word, not a phrase. If this was to pass, all the inflectors should be handling phrases. Which I think perhaps is a bit much to promise?

  • James Adam

    James Adam November 16th, 2008 @ 07:54 PM

    That could be a fair point; part of the motivation behind the patch is that, by the examples in the RDoc above it, I do expect pluralize to work on phrases:

    "the blue mailman".pluralize # => "the blue mailmen"

    If that example were to be removed, I wouldn't have so readily expected pluralise to work on my phrase ("sports equipment"), and would've created a wrapper for pluralize in my own app.

    I'm not sure all the inflectors would need to know/care about phrases - probably only pluralize and singularize. As a rough sketch:

    def with_last_word(phrase, &block)
      words = phrase.split(" ")
      last_word = words.pop
      words.join(" ")
    def pluralize(phrase)
      with_last_word(phrase) { |w| w + 's' }
    def singularize(phrase)
      with_last_word(phrase) { |w| w.gsub(/s$/, '') }
    pluralize("the dancing fool") # => "the dancing fools"
    singularize("prancing idiots") # => "prancing idiot"

    If you feel this is worthwhile, I'll work up a proper patch for both methods. Otherwise, I feel that the 'blue mailmen' example should be removed, as it's misleading and encourages the broken behaviour.

  • DHH

    DHH November 16th, 2008 @ 08:28 PM

    • State changed from “new” to “resolved”

    I agree. I think it's cleaner to keep pluralize/singularize to words as all the other inflectors do that too. I'll remove blue mailmen. Don't know how that snuck in there.

Create your profile

Help contribute to this project by taking a few moments to create your personal profile. Create your profile »

<h2 style="font-size: 14px">Tickets have moved to Github</h2>

The new ticket tracker is available at <a href=""></a>

People watching this ticket