About KCP and automatic initialize

ducasse ducasse at iam.unibe.ch
Wed Sep 17 16:23:57 UTC 2003


hi ned

my gut feeling tells me that initialize is better because this is used. 
Look at initializeInstance nobody
uses it.
> What do you think of this idea? We could still go through the code and
> clean up existing (mis) uses of the initialize patterns.
This was my idea.

Stef


On Mercredi, sep 17, 2003, at 17:29 Europe/Zurich, Ned Konz wrote:

> On Wednesday 17 September 2003 12:33 am, Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:
>> There is no argument against the KCP.
>> The argument against automatic #initialize is for the most part
>> not an argument against automatic initialisation.  If it was
>> automatic #initializeYourself, there'd have been a
>> grumble-but-go-ahead. (And then we would have missed out on Andreas
>> Raab's wonderful suggestion.)
>
> On Wednesday 17 September 2003 01:08 am, ducasse wrote:
>> I have the impression that the discussions is not making progress
>> anymore so this is my last post on this topic.
>> Reread my emails to see what and why I think that this is good.
>> This is Concrete Reuse (tm).
>
> Stef, Noury:
>
> Perhaps I missed it, but I don't recall you addressing Richard's
> suggestion of adopting your change but using some other selector than
> #initialize to avoid breaking existing code.
>
> Its name is unimportant, as long as it's not already being used
> somewhere as an instance method.
>
> What do you think of this idea? We could still go through the code and
> clean up existing (mis) uses of the initialize patterns.


>
> -- 
> Ned Konz
> http://bike-nomad.com
> GPG key ID: BEEA7EFE
>
>



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list