If you are going to open each and every method to read the comment or the code instead of trusting the name, IMHO that is going to be a real problem.
If the focus shall be on real problems, then why change APIs which are not a real problem?

2013/10/25 St�phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr>

can we focus on real problems?
The method has a comment.

Stef

On Oct 25, 2013, at 10:39 AM, Norbert Hartl <norbert@hartl.name> wrote:

Am 25.10.2013 um 10:11 schrieb Nicolas Cellier <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice@gmail.com>:

So action=create object=directory
you want to be sure that you create a directory?
What if it already exists?
Since you want to be sure to create, will you erase and re-create?

You see the kind of misunderstanding this could create...
IOW, self ensureCreateMisunderstanding

+1 I didn�t like it in the first place. It is just confusing. And probably an example how hard it can be if two or more non-native speaker try to find something that makes sense.

Norbert

2013/10/25 St�phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr>

Consistency
ensureActionObject

ensureCreateDirectory
ensureCreateFile

We discuss a lot with camillo when we did it and I think that this is good right now.

> Out of curiosity, what was the motivation behind Issue 10924: Simplifying
> ensure* and create protocol?
>
> For me #ensureCreateDirectory is less intention revealing than
> #ensureDirectory because the "ensure" means "create only if necessary", not
> "definitely create" a directory. What am I missing? Thanks.
>
>
>
> -----
> Cheers,
> Sean
> --
> View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/ensureCreateDirectory-tp4716925.html
> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>