[SqNOS] Another aesthetic question

[Johnathon Meichtry]

I like option 4 as it matches in my mind what I am picturing the 
device/method to be doing at the time.  Opt 3 is also good as it matches 
more closely typical Squeak method naming semantics.

Johnathon


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gerardo Richarte" <gera at corest.com>
To: <squeaknos at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 2:36 PM
Subject: [SqNOS] Another aesthetic question


> The device I'm working on, as well as other devices, have bits which can
> be set, cleared and tested. For this we need three different methods
> (could be two). The question is on how to name them:
>
> opt. 1:
>    isOwnedByHost    (test)
>    beOwnedByHost   (set)
>    beOwnedByCard   (clear)
>
> opt. 2:
>    ownedByHost (test)
>    etc.
>
> opt. 3:
>    isEndOfPacket   (test)
>    beEndOfPacket   (set)
>    dontBeEndOfPacket   (clear)
>
> opt. 4:
>    isEndOfPacket   (test)
>    endOfPacketSet
>    endOfPacketClear
>
>    or any mix, or anything else. Right now I have a mixture, like opt1
> and opt4. I'm not sure if this is the best thing to do (mix the flavors)
> or stick to a more strict naming convention and leave the English
> semantic aside. Remember English is not my native tongue, so I may as
> well misjudge what's sounds better.
>
>     Uses of this would be, for example
>
>    receiveRing isOwnedByHost ifTrue: [queue add: (EthernetPacket bytes:
> receiveRing message)]
>
>    transmitRing beEndOfPacket.
>    transmitRing dontBeEndOfPacket
>
>    or
>
>    transmitRing endOfPacketSet
>    transmitRing endOfPacketClear
>
>    thoughts?
>    thanks!
>    gera.
> _______________________________________________
> SqueakNOS mailing list
> SqueakNOS at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/squeaknos
>