All the other messages could have had the copy prepended if it was a question of homogeneitty with existing API. The fact is that they were added later than copy and copyFrom:to: Of course, we can as well remove the copy prefix, but do we really care ? Is it really what makes the message ambiguous ? If I wouldn't know about the message, my question would not be about whether or not the message triggers a copy. It would be whether the argument are elements or indices. I could expect: #( 'foo' 'bar' 'baz') copyFrom: 'bar' to: 'baz'. to work like: #( 'foo' 'bar' 'baz') after: 'foo'. Nicolas 2011/1/7 <pharo@googlecode.com>:
Comment #17 on issue 3436 by step...@stack.nl: #copyFrom: is broken http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3436
Nicolas wrote:
Because you have two ways to copy a string : - a copy of the full string - a partial copy from start index to stop index does this POV makes it clearer ?
This does not help, as we also have a.o. - allButFirst: - allButLast: - first: - last: -reverse: - sortBy:
and compare to: - after: - before: - appendTo: - sort:
and then to: - copyEmpty
or even to: - truncateWithElipsisTo:
How am I supposed to know if I change the original vs get a copy?