[squeak-dev] Re: Selectors with underscores: Have your cake and eat it, too...

Ian Trudel ian.trudel at gmail.com
Sat Mar 13 05:44:04 UTC 2010

2010/3/13 Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de>:
> On 3/12/2010 9:22 PM, Ian Trudel wrote:
>> I like the manner you have presented this. Concise information. There
>> is a question that seems to be not addressed (or not as clear as I'd
>> like) in your email. What happen if one switches from one preference
>> to another after having extensively used it? Is there some kind of
>> conversion taking place?
> No. If you switch the interpretation of underscores mid-way, you deserve
> swift punishment and you shall receive it :-) This is supposed to be a
> pretty static default and like I was saying I'd be in favor of disallowing
> underscores altogether for baseline development. In which case you'd turn on
> one or the other in situations where you may need it, for example when
> porting code using underscore assignment, or when loading a library that
> comes from a system using underscores.

All right. I believe it is not as much appealing as it would have been
with the conversion. I'm also wondering what kind of implications it
could have on the trunk. Won't it give additional worries (burden) if
people don't stick to a certain standard? To my understanding, it
could become a melting pot and it's not like recompiling will never
occur in the trunk. Swift punishment, you said... :)


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list