On 2 December 2013 10:16, Bert Freudenberg bert@freudenbergs.de wrote:
On 2013-11-30, at 01:00, Frank Shearar frank.shearar@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 November 2013 23:50, tim Rowledge tim@rowledge.org wrote:
On 29-11-2013, at 3:38 PM, Frank Shearar frank.shearar@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 November 2013 21:51, tim Rowledge tim@rowledge.org wrote:
On 29-11-2013, at 12:43 PM, Frank Shearar frank.shearar@gmail.com wrote:
inherentSelectorForGetter
That’s absolutely a Symbol method and really ought always have been there.
It wasn't clear to me either from the senders-of or the implementation whether it should go on Symbol or String, so I went with the broader/safer option, and put it on String.
But I take it you're voting for "put it on the dang object" option rather than "monkey patching is evil”?
Guess so; methods ought to go in The Right Place. Now *defining* that place… that’s where the art is.
And so a method that takes a string/symbol and turns it into some slightly different symbol pretty much ought to go on String/Symbol.
I'm leaning heavily towards the monkey patch option, and not just because I have the work done waiting for committing. I'll hold off on anything for the moment though, both because it has a rather large number of changes to Etoys and to give others a chance to chime in. That it's midnight here, and I'm tired and hence not in the best shape to do dangerous things like commit changes has nothing at all to do with the waiting. Promise.
frank
Converting between setters and getters seems generally useful to me, so even if at the moment it may be only used in Etoys, I'd not make it an Etoys-specific extension.
Since we ship Etoys in a standard Squeak image, how about we keep these methods in Etoys until we do start mangling selectors elsewhere? In other words, pull the methods out on demand? (I have no objections to them moving out of Etoys if they do prove to be generally useful.)
frank
- Bert -