About at: and basicAt difference
Doug Way
dway at riskmetrics.com
Mon Jan 14 02:01:47 UTC 2002
Bijan Parsia wrote:
>
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2002, Lex Spoon wrote:
>
> > > I should have said that I knew that.
> > >
> > > My point was that the text following the primitives is different in
> > > Object>>at: and Object>>basicAt: while they both call the same primitive.
> >
> > True, it would be nice if the comment made the distinction. Would you
> > like to post a changeset? :)
>
> There are other #basicFoo messages...what would be nice if one could
> write a general comment about #basicFoo vs #foo messages (usually, this
> info shows up in external material).
>
> This is a great example of cross cutting concerns in *documentation* as
> well as code.
One possibly good way of "documenting" the intent of #basicFoo would be to have RB-SmallLint check for any #basicFoo messages which override themselves and flag those as a problem. That's not exactly the same as documentation, but it does handle the cross-cutting part. :-) (Assuming SmallLint becomes widely used at some point.)
- Doug Way
dway at riskmetrics.com
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|