2014-05-28 22:49 GMT+02:00 stepharo <stepharo@free.fr>:

On 26/5/14 23:07, GOUBIER Thierry wrote:

In my own code, I allways use ClassOrganization>>#realCategories to avoid getting the --all-- category. I consider the --all-- category to be a GUI artifact, not a class organization concept.

I'd prefer a #protocols (without the --all-- category, of course :)) so ok for deprecating #categories.

+1 :)

Thierry
________________________________________
De : Pharo-dev [pharo-dev-bounces@lists.pharo.org] de la part de Esteban Lorenzano [estebanlm@gmail.com]
Envoy�� : lundi 26 mai 2014 21:20
�� : Pharo Development List
Objet : [Pharo-dev] is ClassOrganization>>#categories right?

Hi,

I wonder is current implementation of that method is good: right now, it answers all categories, including virtual ones (��all��).
A lot of things are made in that assumption, but I wonder if is not better to answer just real categories and to create a new method called #allCategories to answer the reals and the virtuals.

Also, I wonder if wouldn��t be better to just deprecate #categories and use the correct abstraction: #protocols.

any opinions?

Esteban

-1

The sole purpose of categories is to provide backward compatibility support, or am I mistaken?

If it's for backward compatibility, why the hell rename it?

We have #categories -> #realCategories (to avoid bogus --all-- inclusion)�� and now -> #protocols

That's way too much erraticity.

If the purpose is driving buts people caring of package management and cross dialect compatibility, then +1, it's a successfull path ;)

I know, I know, Pharo values clean API - protocols ;) - more than compatibility, but cleaning a message dedicated to compatibility somehow sounds too much.

If you opt for protocols, at least, please remove --all--