Hi, I wonder is current implementation of that method is good: right now, it answers all categories, including virtual ones (âallâ). 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 wouldnât be better to just deprecate #categories and use the correct abstraction: #protocols. any opinions? Esteban
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. Thierry ________________________________________ De : Pharo-dev [pharo-dev-bounces@lists.pharo.org] de la part de Esteban Lorenzano [estebanlm@gmail.com] Envoyé : lundi 26 mai 2014 21:20 à : 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 (âallâ). 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 wouldnât be better to just deprecate #categories and use the correct abstraction: #protocols. any opinions? Esteban
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 for #protocols
Thierry ________________________________________ De : Pharo-dev [pharo-dev-bounces@lists.pharo.org] de la part de Esteban Lorenzano [estebanlm@gmail.com] Envoyé : lundi 26 mai 2014 21:20 à : 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 (âallâ). 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 wouldnât be better to just deprecate #categories and use the correct abstraction: #protocols.
any opinions?
Esteban
and +1 for me. On 27 May 2014, at 01:57, Ben Coman <btc@openInWorld.com> wrote:
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 for #protocols
Thierry ________________________________________ De : Pharo-dev [pharo-dev-bounces@lists.pharo.org] de la part de Esteban Lorenzano [estebanlm@gmail.com] Envoyé : lundi 26 mai 2014 21:20 à : 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 (âallâ). 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 wouldnât be better to just deprecate #categories and use the correct abstraction: #protocols.
any opinions?
Esteban
On 27 May 2014, at 01:57, Ben Coman <btc@openInWorld.com> wrote:
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 for #protocols
returning protocol objects, not symbols⦠Marcus
________________________________________ De : Pharo-dev [pharo-dev-bounces@lists.pharo.org] de la part de Marcus Denker [marcus.denker@inria.fr] Envoyé : mardi 27 mai 2014 09:58 à : Pharo Development List Objet : Re: [Pharo-dev] is ClassOrganization>>#categories right? On 27 May 2014, at 01:57, Ben Coman <btc@openInWorld.com> wrote:
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 for #protocols
returning protocol objects, not symbols⦠Up to you, just that it is consistent... protocol objects everywhere, or symbols everywhere. #categories for symbols, #protocols for protocol objects (and #addCategory: for symbols, #addProtocol: for protocols, and so on...). A subject for the Pharo Sprint planned by Serge in Paris in two weeks time ? Thierry Marcus
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 10:38 AM, GOUBIER Thierry <thierry.goubier@cea.fr> wrote:
________________________________________
De : Pharo-dev [pharo-dev-bounces@lists.pharo.org] de la part de Marcus Denker [marcus.denker@inria.fr] Envoyé : mardi 27 mai 2014 09:58 à : Pharo Development List Objet : Re: [Pharo-dev] is ClassOrganization>>#categories right?
On 27 May 2014, at 01:57, Ben Coman <btc@openInWorld.com> wrote:
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 for #protocols
returning protocol objects, not symbolsâ¦
Up to you, just that it is consistent... protocol objects everywhere, or symbols everywhere. #categories for symbols, #protocols for protocol objects (and #addCategory: for symbols, #addProtocol: for protocols, and so on...).
A subject for the Pharo Sprint planned by Serge in Paris in two weeks time ?
Why not, we have time in the afternoons. More details about the planned MOOSEDAY in Paris: http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/MOOSEDayUPMC/ Regards, -- Serge Stinckwich UCBN & UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC) Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/
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] Envoyé : lundi 26 mai 2014 21:20 à : 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 (âallâ). 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 wouldnât be better to just deprecate #categories and use the correct abstraction: #protocols.
any opinions?
Esteban
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] Envoyé : lundi 26 mai 2014 21:20 à : 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 (âallâ). 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 wouldnât 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--
I would be for: - deprecate #categories - add #protocols but not answering a string. Answer the protocol objects. after all, the whole purpose of this is to reify the protocol concept. and of course, Nicolas is right⦠protocols *should not* answer allProtocol⦠or any other virtual protocol. I agree that answering in #categories is an error too⦠if we are going to change it, letâs not carry the original mistake. Esteban On 28 May 2014, at 18:16, Nicolas Cellier <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice@gmail.com> wrote:
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] Envoyé : lundi 26 mai 2014 21:20 à : 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 (âallâ). 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 wouldnât 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--
2014-05-29 0:43 GMT+02:00 Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm@gmail.com>:
I would be for:
- deprecate #categories - add #protocols but not answering a string. Answer the protocol objects.
after all, the whole purpose of this is to reify the protocol concept.
and of course, Nicolas is right⦠protocols *should not* answer allProtocol⦠or any other virtual protocol. I agree that answering in #categories is an error too⦠if we are going to change it, letâs not carry the original mistake.
Esteban
+1, that sounds better, then #protocols is not just another rename but a value change. In that case, first revert #categories (remove --all--), - #categories -> #categoriesAndPseudoCategories - #realCategories -> #categories backport to Pharo 3.1, deprecate it in 4.0 (grace period for package maintenance...) One can allways arrange to add #categories later in a compatibility layer. Nicolas
On 28 May 2014, at 18:16, Nicolas Cellier < nicolas.cellier.aka.nice@gmail.com> wrote:
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] Envoyé : lundi 26 mai 2014 21:20 à : 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 (âallâ). 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 wouldnât 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--
Thanks nicolas it sounds like a good strategy. BTW: we will need help because now 40 is starting (and I have to handle a totally new house too so starting to paint paint fix paint and paint a bit more, sawing, drilling, .... :)) Stef
+1, that sounds better, then #protocols is not just another rename but a value change.
In that case, first revert #categories (remove --all--), - #categories -> #categoriesAndPseudoCategories - #realCategories -> #categories backport to Pharo 3.1, deprecate it in 4.0 (grace period for package maintenance...)
One can allways arrange to add #categories later in a compatibility layer.
Nicolas
participants (8)
-
Ben Coman -
Esteban Lorenzano -
GOUBIER Thierry -
Marcus Denker -
Nicolas Cellier -
Serge Stinckwich -
stepharo -
Yuriy Tymchuk