Do I understand correctly that name is to be understood as inspectorName and so should never be implemented as subclass responsibility? Stephan
Object>>#name should be removed, it is possible, I tried it once. Most senders of #name are asking for the name of a class. On 26 May 2014, at 18:15, Stephan Eggermont <stephan@stack.nl> wrote:
Do I understand correctly that name is to be understood as inspectorName and so should never be implemented as subclass responsibility?
Stephan
+1 on the removal of Object>>#name. On May 26, 2014, at 1:19 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:
Object>>#name should be removed, it is possible, I tried it once. Most senders of #name are asking for the name of a class.
On 26 May 2014, at 18:15, Stephan Eggermont <stephan@stack.nl> wrote:
Do I understand correctly that name is to be understood as inspectorName and so should never be implemented as subclass responsibility?
Stephan
---> Save our in-boxes! http://emailcharter.org <--- Johan Fabry - http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry PLEIAD lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile
On May 26, 2014, at 3:08 PM, Esteban A. Maringolo <emaringolo@gmail.com> wrote:
2014-05-26 15:14 GMT-03:00 Johan Fabry <jfabry@dcc.uchile.cl>:
+1 on the removal of Object>>#name.
Everybody got bitten by the accessor creation of #name: and #name1 :)
Bitten? No. Annoyed? Yes yes yes. :-) ---> Save our in-boxes! http://emailcharter.org <--- Johan Fabry - http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry PLEIAD lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile
jfabry wrote
+1 on the removal of Object>>#name.
+1. It is a trap, especially for new users... ----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/name-selector-tp4760402p4760542.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
+ 1 Norbert Am 26.05.2014 um 19:19 schrieb Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu>:
Object>>#name should be removed, it is possible, I tried it once. Most senders of #name are asking for the name of a class.
On 26 May 2014, at 18:15, Stephan Eggermont <stephan@stack.nl> wrote:
Do I understand correctly that name is to be understood as inspectorName and so should never be implemented as subclass responsibility?
Stephan
On 26/5/14 19:19, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote:
Object>>#name should be removed,
+1
it is possible, I tried it once. Most senders of #name are asking for the name of a class.
On 26 May 2014, at 18:15, Stephan Eggermont <stephan@stack.nl> wrote:
Do I understand correctly that name is to be understood as inspectorName and so should never be implemented as subclass responsibility?
Stephan
participants (8)
-
Esteban A. Maringolo -
Johan Fabry -
Norbert Hartl -
Sean P. DeNigris -
Sergi Reyner -
Stephan Eggermont -
stepharo -
Sven Van Caekenberghe