IMO, no.
We don't want to have an empty Matrix by default, it's useless 99% of time.
So it means initializing twice for nothing 99% of time.
That's exactly where I would put basicNew...

Le jeu. 5 sept. 2019 à 22:35, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> a écrit :

> C'mon guys, it's neither!
>
> "Different super call" is a classic smell picked up by Lint, and I agree
> with Tim about "basicNew" -- is an unnecessary use of a low-level method.
>
> So why not simply the same conventional Smalltalky way, overriding
> #initialize like everywhere else?
>
>   initialize
>        super initialize.
>        self rows: 0 columns: 0 contents: Array empty
>
> And, done..?
>
>  - Chris
>
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 3:38 PM tim Rowledge <tim at rowledge.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> > On 2019-09-04, at 12:58 PM, Thiede, Christoph <
>> Christoph.Thiede at student.hpi.uni-potsdam.de> wrote:
>> >
>> > Thank you :)
>> >
>> > A very minor question: Would you favor [self basicNew] over [super
>> new]? It will work completely equivalently, but what is the better style?
>>
>> ^super new
>>
>> `self basicNew` will not always work equivalently. And I can almost
>> guarantee it will always do the wrong thing just when you feel sure it is
>> doing the right thing. And you will suffer Debugging Hell.
>>
>>
>> tim
>> --
>> tim Rowledge; tim at rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
>> Why use one word when two polysyllabic agglomerates will do?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20190905/0af5c2aa/attachment-0001.html>