#printString and #printOn: protocol should be used for printing and #asString for conversion. This implies that #asString should not depend on #print protocol.
Ah, I used it the other way around: printOn depends on asString. I saw 'conversion' as the lower level. Why do you distinguish here between conversion and 'printing'? Especially if displayString is being replaced with asString - to me that sounds against your thinking in principle.
If we are going to use #asString to mimic #displayString (instead of as a conversion method) then to me #asString should be viewed at a higher level abstraction than #printOn:. If not then we can run into these issues when calling the higher-level abstraction from a lower level in the same objectt, as you mentioned. Calling #printString from #asString from an API perspective should not cause issues (as displaying something is very different from converting something) so Iâd say this is an API design problem.
Yes, I think the API could be clearer. So this becomes the essence of the question here: What is the meaning of these methods from an API perspective? Thanks for the response