I think overall you're right about the implicit ... let's add a public and a private keyword to Pharo and enforce it :( I like to browse through existing code and see a long list of categories, carefully ordered from extensions all the way down to half a dosen private protocols, and recognize the care in which the author has organized and documented his code for my own, unimportant, benefit. As a aside, one of the aspect I like about RPackage is that it has the ability to accept multiple protocols as extensions, since it is not really tracking protocols, but methods directly. After, I also noticed that MC was able too, which would allow for documenting by using multiple protocols for large extensions sets such as RPackageOrganizer *Rpackage-SystemIntegration. So far, at the GUI level, I'm not making use of that :( Thanks for considering my wishes for the new ClassOrganization. Thierry ________________________________________ De : pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr [pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr] de la part de Camillo Bruni [camillobruni@gmail.com] Date d'envoi : dimanche 9 septembre 2012 14:08 Ã : Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr Objet : Re: [Pharo-project] RE : Re: RE : RE : NewClassOrganizer On 2012-09-09, at 13:58, Philippe Back <philippe.back@gmail.com> wrote:
Cami,
A general ordering of standard (so to speak) protocols would be nice indeed.
But what about pretty local protocols? Like things in PetitParser for example. Alphabetical would be a nuisance.
I'd prefer something like tags on methods to properly denote this information. But true, ordering might help for readability... I am just no big fan of all this implicit stuff, that's why I say this goes into the UI where you properly tell the user what the ordering means (by say bars telling "private" or so...) anyways, with the new class organizer it should be pretty easy to switch between different kinds of representation since we will use real collections and not some half-dict-half-array breed.