On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 05:01:37PM -0600, Chris Muller wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 11:00 AM Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > I disagree with this.  Only certain processes are named.  Including the
> > destiny name of unnamed processes just introduces noise.  By all means
> > include the name of named processes, but please *don???t* add verbosity where
> > it is unhelpful.
> >
> 
> +1.  You are so right.  Assigning a *name* for human consumption
> establishes the intent of the human's desire to utilize its #name as the
> basis for its consumption.  If specific identity distinction is
> needed, then set it as part of its name, but we should not include
> arbitrary attributes in its #printString.  If such additional identity
> attributes are needed, they should be consumed by sending the appropriate
> messages from the appropriate places (UI).
> 

Eliot and Chris both think that this was a bad idea. I don't understand
the objection, but if no one speaks up in support of it, I will revert
the merge in a day or two.

Dave


> In fact, I would recommend taking this concept one step further by, when a
> name for human consumption is explicitly set, consider it an indication
> that the "type" (e.g., class), is not really germaine to its #printString,
> either.  Skip the super call.
> 
> Alternatively, the name accessors could be changed to
> 
>     ^ name value
> 
> so that a Block could be assigned (e.g., dynamic name).
> 
>  - Chris

>