Great. I am interested in providing feedback. Doru
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 3:34 PM, stepharo <steph...@free.fr> wrote: > Hi sean > > with damien we are restarting to work on analysing String API. > We would like to have it much more regular. We will finish a first small > articles > summarizing our analysis and send it around. > > Stef > > Le 9/4/15 12:59, Sean P. DeNigris a écrit : > > 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. >> >> >> > > -- www.tudorgirba.com "Every thing has its own flow"
