"Abstract" and "Basic" classes (was: Re: [BUG] Various packages in Squeak 3.8 (eCompletion, Comanche, Seaside...))

Avi Bryant avi.bryant at gmail.com
Fri Apr 8 21:34:16 UTC 2005


On Apr 8, 2005 11:30 PM, Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
> This raises the interesting question if we shouldn't do some renaming,
> say "AbstractString" into "String" and "String" into "ByteString". The
> reasoning being that String is a concept (that of containing characters)
> not an implementation (that of containing 8 bit latin1 encoded
> characters) and it encourages using the generalization since most people
> are used to thinking in terms of "String" modifications.

+1

> PS. I'm not fixed on doing the above rename - it would be equally fine
> with me to change AbstractString to CharacterArray or somesuch which
> would be somewhat more in line with subclasses of SequenceableCollection
> having a <Foo>Array like name.

True, although that wouldn't have the nice benefit of fixing all the
code again that's suddenly breaking in 3.8...

Avi



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list