Hi Chris,

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 3:10 PM, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Eliot,
>
> Object>>#name is a travesty, but #className seems perfectly
> reasonable.  Did you notice the comment of the method?  -- it has
> nothing to do with "is" testing, but for accessing the type names of
> objects for a list, useful for presenting a list classes which could be
> the receiver for constructor of more objects.
>

You miss my point.  Many people complain about the proliferation of 'is'
methods, but I see them as well worth the cost.  I agree that name is a
travesty and className falls in the same category for me.  The issue is it
exists as a printing method but it
- collides with methods that are used to model classes and there are plenty
of them
- doesn't provide much utility as it is effectively foo class name, and foo
className saves one character.


> I have overrides of #className in some of the Ma Serializer classes,
> it's never presented any headache for me at all.
>

Except when one uses "create inst var accessors" and the getter is not
produced ;-)


>
> > e.g. when one tries to do "create inst var accessors" for a class that
> one has
> > added a className inst var?
>
> Honestly, dude, THAT is what irritated you enough to want to delete
> this 17 year old method?  A special-case of a special-case?
>
> I would rather get rid of "create inst var accessors" altogether, then
> you would not have that problem.   :)
>
> I don't really see any problem with #className, and easily presenting
> the types of objects in a list is very feasible thing to want to do.
>
> -1
>

Well, each to his own.


>
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> >     I find Object>>#className offensive; is methods are far nicer than
> this
> > nonsense.  First of all  className is implemented in several Monticello
> > classes to do what you'd expect; answer the name of a class of some
> > to-be-imported item such as a method or class definition.  Second, there
> are
> > tests out there that simply don't do what a naive reading might expect:
> >
> > testClassCommentAnnotation
> > | annotation |
> > browser selectSystemCategory: browser class category.
> > browser selectClass: browser class.
> > annotation := browser annotationForClassCommentFor: browser class.
> > self assert: (annotation includesSubstring: browser class organization
> > commentStamp).
> > self assert: (annotation includesSubstring: 'class comment for').
> > self assert: (annotation includesSubstring: browser className).
> >
> > Is it /really/ that hard to write foo class name instead of foo className
> > and have subclasses prevented from using it easily e.g. when one tries
> to do
> > "create inst var accessors" for a class that one has added a className
> inst
> > var?  We already have Object>>#name, which is horrible enough.  Ca we
> think
> > seriously about nuking Object>>#className?
> >
> > The grouch.
> > _,,,^..^,,,_
> > best, Eliot
> >
> >
> >
>
>


-- 
_,,,^..^,,,_
best, Eliot
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20170324/0465e084/attachment.html>