Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de> writes:
> > join: anOrderedCollection
> 
> It would be good to give this a role instead of a type name. From the
> type name it's not immediately obvious whether:
>    'abc' join: 'xyz'
> results in 'axyzbxyzc' or 'xabcyabcz'.

Yeah, you can only learn the behavior by experience.  It would be
better if the name just gave away the behavior.



> >     "Implicit precondition: my elements are all OrderedCollections"
> 
> The precondition should probably be that "receiver species = argument
> species" and consequently determine the result species.


Actually, it might be nice to make this produce *strings*.  That's
what most people seem to want the method for.  It's hard to think of a good name that is shorter than the implementation, but maybe:


   joinStringsWith:
   printStrings:
   makeString:


Join is popular for people who use Perl, but it seems weird if there's
a print involved in the method.  printStrings: can be misread in
several ways, e.g. does it return the print strings?  Does it print
the argument's elmeents, which are expected to be strings?

I lean towards makeString:, though I admit I have different and warped
experience that makes this one look familiar to me.  That said,
makeString: does tell you the most important thing about the method--
it flattens the receiver into a string.  It is vague about how it does
it, but in most use cases the reader can guess (foo makeString: ', ').



-Lex