<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"><html><head><meta content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type"></head><body ><div style='font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;'>This thread raises an important issue *<br><br>Does Squeak have a protocol/method naming standard?<br><br><br>Does OpenSmalltalk ?<br><br>Its a huge issue for the consortium minded, but the utility is self evident when one realizes that Smalltalks are poised for explosive growth.<br><br><br>I have bumped into, on Seaside, this issue and I entirely agree with the maintainer that java-isms are detrimental to thinking in objects.<br><br><br>Surely helpers can be written to scan method names and flag them for improvement.<br><br><br><br><br>*(SpeakinAsA DeveloperWhoHabituallyRevertsToCamelCaseWithDisastrousRamificationsAndClassNamesTwiceThisInLengthInA FutileDesireForClarity)<div id="message"></div><br id="br3"><div id="signature"></div><div id="content"><br> ---- On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 17:40:22 -0400 <b> forums.jakob@resfarm.de </b> wrote ----<br><br><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 6px; margin-left: 5px;"><div>timrowledge wrote<br>> And of course there's always <br>> [thingy doStuff]<br>> on: MyStuffError<br>> do: [:ex| ex helpMeObiWanKenobi]<br><br>Though this doesn't work so well to check protocol conformance with on:<br>MessageNotUnderstood ("Can I use thingy doStuff or must I use otherThingy<br>doFluff instead on this platform?"). 1) thingy might actually implement<br>doStuff, but have a different idea of what it means than your code expects,<br>2) unless Obi-Wan very carefully checks the message send that signalled MNU,<br>you would also catch all the random type errors the programmers of thingy<br>made deep in doStuff.<br><br><br><br>--<br>Sent from: <a href="http://forum.world.st/Squeak-Dev-f45488.html" target="_blank">http://forum.world.st/Squeak-Dev-f45488.html</a><br><br></div></blockquote></div></div><br></body></html>