+1. In addition, half the methods you usually look for is actually implemented in their proper place (that is, SequenceableCollection, not String).
Cheers, Henry > On 09 Apr 2015, at 12:59 , Sean P. DeNigris <s...@clipperadams.com> wrote: > > Damien Pollet-2 wrote >> Indeed, there is much to say about the String API :) >> Thanks for mentioning this, I'm gathering missing behavior like this ! > > It seems unanimous that we should add these. I agree that they are useful in > some cases. However, strings are so general that IMHO there are infinite > such operations that we could add. Already "String methodDict size = 333", > and one can't depend on method protocols to sort things out because they are > hijacked for package extensions, so it's easy to be fooled by thinking "let > me check the converting protocol for that" and (maybe) finding out later > that you missed it because #asXyz is in *OtherPackage, which now forces you > to manually scroll through 333 methods to make sure your desired message > hasn't been implemented. > > So I'm not saying "don't add them". I just want to have a conversation > about: > 1. How often would these be needed? (We should have that conversation about > most of String's methods) > 2. Do we have any plans for real protocols, with the concepts of privacy and > package extension extracted into other objects where they belong? > 3. In the mean time, what is a reasonable cognitive limit for an API? For me > 333 is way beyond comprehension with the current tooling, crippled somewhat > by #2. > > > > ----- > Cheers, > Sean > -- > View this message in context: > http://forum.world.st/String-operations-tp4817803p4818540.html > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >
