My recollection is that it got changed (in industry) because it made more sense contextually, that when looking at a particular method you would push it up the hierarchy vs. pull (I think I also recall that in the original RFB, you had to be on the superclass and then choose pull up - and it showed you potential methods you could pull? I might be mistaken - but I recall that it was quite awkward). The downside of the current terminology - is that pushing should also find similar peer methods (in other equivalent subclasses) and push them up as well. That is less obvious - than in the âpullâ terminology - as being at the top you can see all the equivalents and more obviously pull them all together. However, I think the current words are better - and it seems to be what has stuck now. Tim p.s. We really should start looking at introducing keystrokes for many of these refactorings in Pharo - definitely the extract and rename variants should be doable from the keyboard in the method pane. When you see our colleagues using IntelliJ (and even Eclipse) - its so much faster. On 12 Aug 2014, at 02:00, Bernardo Ezequiel Contreras <vonbecmann@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all, According to the book Refactoring[1] you pull up a method but if you look at the refactoring options in a method, you'll see push up instead of pull up. See attached image.
Is that a bug or a deliberate decision?
Thanks
[1] Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code Martin Fowler Kent Beck John Brant William Opdyke Don Roberts Publisher: Addison Wesley
-- Bernardo E.C.
Sent from a cheap desktop computer in South America. <a MenuMorph(931135488).jpeg>