On 05 May 2013, at 21:42, St�phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:

> Hi guys
>
> Stupidly I introduced log: a while ago to replace Transcript show:. Now is the current situation.
>
> I still want to remove all the use of Transcript show:
>
> Now since I thought I did a mistake with log: because it overload Integer>>log: I introduced trace: and traceCr:
>
> Now I do not like traceCr: because it is not a cool message.
>
> So what do we do:
>
> � � � 1) we use crLog:, logCr:
> � � � and deprecated log:
>
>
> � � � 2) we use crTrace:, trace: and traceCr:
>
> I really prefer solution 1 but I would like to hear from you.
>
> Stef

I am for 1 as well, but I find #crLog: or #logCr: confusing - there should only be one system wide approach.
Also, whether or not to add a Cr to a log message (or before or after it) is not a decision a client/user should have to make.
Maybe Cr makes no sense, for example when log messages are added to a collection.

So I am for #log: as a simple and clear message.

The conflict with Number>>#log: is less important than that IMHO.
Either we live with the conflict or we rename Number>>#log: to Number>>#logBase: or something like that.

I also like the convention of #value being sent by #log: to its argument.
That allows for blocks that are not evaluated when logging is disabled.

My 2c.

Sven

--
Sven Van Caekenberghe
http://stfx.eu
Smalltalk is the Red Pill