I will probably sound stupid but here I go.

I am no fan of Pragmas. I feel that their syntax is weird and unnecessary and what they do can be easily achieved with a secondary class that provides this meta data.

In case of examples it would have been possible to have examples in a separate package together with a class that provides the additional info the IDE needs to trigger the right tools.

On the other hand I was neither a fan of using example as part of a method name.

Saying that instancePrototype sounds a lot more clear than examplar.

On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 at 08:39, stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote:
Hi sean

this is exactly with <sampleInstance> but this is not exactly the
solution doru envision.

But I think that sampleInstance is letting people build extra tools and
also let people use the sample method

in their test and others.


Stef


Le 21/8/16 �� 02:01, Sean P. DeNigris a ��crit :
> Tudor Girba-2 wrote
>> In this case, you will not be able to use the resulting object, and the
>> new energy around examples started from the need to utilize that ability
>> The other solution is to delegate the action to another pragma that can
>> complement the example one.
> Isn't that what we've settled on? That is, <sampleInstance> for when you
> need the result? It seems that all bases are covered if those methods return
> an instance and the browser button takes that instance and opens an
> inspector, no?
>
>
>
> -----
> Cheers,
> Sean
> --
> View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/example-examplar-tp4911728p4912083.html
> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>