I can accept your second point, but in your PR I would absolutely request you to rename the method to isYoung, and then in making said comment I would then ask… what value isYoung providing, and where is the line between young and !young ultimately for trying to get the dev to reevaluate the design. It’s hyper specific in an obtuse manner and I think it hints at design flaws especially with the perspective of product evolution
The young method returns a boolean parameter. Females have a different type for obvious biological discrepancies that require extra functionality.
I can accept your second point, but in your PR I would absolutely request you to rename the method to
isYoung, and then in making said comment I would then ask… what value isYoung providing, and where is the line between young and !young ultimately for trying to get the dev to reevaluate the design. It’s hyper specific in an obtuse manner and I think it hints at design flaws especially with the perspective of product evolution