name-badge misnamed exercises/functions: IF required to *return*, then don't label it "print", please..

[libweirdness]

"1. Print a badge for an employee"

"Implement the print_name_badge function."

"It should return the badge label, with the department name in uppercase."

IF it should RETURN a label, & not print it, then it shouldn't be named "print_badge_label".

ALL the "print_badge_label" exercise items are misleadingly worded..

"2. Print a badge for a new employee."

"When the id is missing, it should print a badge without it."

but if you println, instead of return, you fail your tests!

3. also.

_ /\ _

[colinleach]

Fair point. Unfortunately, changing the function names now would break all the existing solutions: a big step.

FYI, essentially the same exercise has existed on the Elixir track for 4 years already, causing no problems that I'm aware of.

This exercise is deep in the syllabus, so I assume that most students getting this far know that all tests within Exercism need a return value

[depial]

Since this is so systematic, maybe we could change the wording in the instructions? For example, something like:

"1. Print a badge for an employee" => "1. Create a badge for an employee".

Also, I may be able to find a work around if we want to change the names of the functions without breaking current solutions (but I'm not sure it's worth it as per the reasons @colinleach points out).

[depial]

I've opened a tentative PR, in case we feel like addressing this. I'm not really a huge fan of the backward compatibility fix.

Also, I do feel that I should point out that print_name_badge here is in direct reference to printing a physical object (i.e. the name badge), so it should be fairly unambiguous that it does not line up with the print function in Julia (which just prints to I/O). Maybe this is why there hasn't been much push back on the Elixir track?

[colinleach]

I'm happy to change the wording in the instructions, as @depial suggests.

I'm much less happy with renaming functions. That is an invasive step for an exercise with existing solutions, and needs a strong justification. I don't think the current names are bad enough to need fixing.

[depial]

I'm inclined to agree with @colinleach about not renaming the functions, especially since they are referencing a physical printing process instead of an electronic one, so I've reverted those changes.

Hopefully I've left things a bit clearer in the PR.

[colinleach]

PR #935 is now merged, in its compromise version. It also fixes issue #933.