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