This thread raises an important issue *

Does Squeak have a protocol/method naming standard?


Does OpenSmalltalk ?

Its a huge issue for the consortium minded, but the utility is self evident when one realizes that Smalltalks are poised for explosive growth.


I have bumped into, on Seaside, this issue and I entirely agree with the maintainer that java-isms are detrimental to thinking in objects.


Surely helpers can be written to scan method names and flag them for improvement.




*(SpeakinAsA DeveloperWhoHabituallyRevertsToCamelCaseWithDisastrousRamificationsAndClassNamesTwiceThisInLengthInA FutileDesireForClarity)


---- On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 17:40:22 -0400 forums.jakob at resfarm.de wrote ----


timrowledge wrote
> And of course there's always
> [thingy doStuff]
>     on: MyStuffError
>     do: [:ex| ex helpMeObiWanKenobi]

Though this doesn't work so well to check protocol conformance with on:
MessageNotUnderstood ("Can I use thingy doStuff or must I use otherThingy
doFluff instead on this platform?"). 1) thingy might actually implement
doStuff, but have a different idea of what it means than your code expects,
2) unless Obi-Wan very carefully checks the message send that signalled MNU,
you would also catch all the random type errors the programmers of thingy
made deep in doStuff.



--
Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Squeak-Dev-f45488.html

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20201020/e0a3f2ef/attachment.html>