[Pharo-dev] ensureCreateDirectory?

Norbert Hartl norbert at hartl.name
Fri Oct 25 10:08:18 EDT 2013


Am 25.10.2013 um 15:52 schrieb Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven at stfx.eu>:

> The problem with #ensure style selectors is that they are confusing because they both test something and maybe do something to create a certain condition. The only way to take away the confusion is to make a very long selector. That is why comments are also important.
> 
Maybe. I didn’t participate in this discussion. And I don’t know about this obscure consistency rules that this particular selector follows. Languages and consistency rules are probably troublesome most of the time. In this particular case I would it have called just like others,too. That would be ensureDirectoryExists. You can indeed „make sure“ that a „particular object“ has a „certain state“ after the method is done. But in a single case it is always easy to argue. I would need to see the full list to get in trouble .

> Like Stef said, this was already debated for quite some time. The current choice is maybe not perfect, there is nothing stopping anyone from suggesting a better alternative. Good luck with getting a consensus. 
> 
Oh, hell, no. I’m stupid but not completely insane :)

Norbert

> On 25 Oct 2013, at 15:28, Norbert Hartl <norbert at hartl.name> wrote:
> 
>> Stef,
>> 
>> I really don’t want to stretch this into an argue …. but I have problems understanding that. There are refactorings of method selectors because it is said it is important that includesSubString: is written as includesSubstring: and there are other examples. Now we have a selector that people find confusing and that is not important? I don’t understand it and the only difference I can see by now is the way you or your team is involved in the action. So the only thing I would understand is sensitivities meaning you are sick of complaints regarding your work. Otherwise I don’t understand that.
>> 
>> Norbert
>> 
>> Am 25.10.2013 um 15:04 schrieb Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse at 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 at hartl.name> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Am 25.10.2013 um 10:11 schrieb Nicolas Cellier <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice at 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 Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse at 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.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 





More information about the Pharo-dev mailing list