There are other conventions like:
* set...
* Delay class >> forMilliseconds: aNumber
^ self new setDelay: aNumber forSemaphore: Semaphore new
* initializeFor...
* DynamicMessageImplementor class>>#for:in:
^ self new initializeFor: aMessage in: aClass
* from:to:...
* Bezier2Segment class>>#from:to:via:
^self new from: startPoint to: endPoint via: viaPoint
I dug a bit to produce this script so you can view more yourself...
protocols := (Protocol allInstances select: [ :p | p name = 'instance
creation' ]) flatCollect: [ :p | p methods ].
methods := protocols select: [ :m | (m occurrencesOf: $:) > 1 ].
implementors := methods flatCollect: [ :m | m implementors ].
constructorExamples := implementors select: [ :i | (i sourceCode
includesAll: 'new') or: [ i sourceCode includesAll: 'basicNew' ] ].
cheers -ben
On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 9:02 PM, Peter Uhnák <i.uh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It seems to me that Smalltalkers are not very fond of constructors and I
> can't comprehend why.
>
> If for example I want to create object X that _needs_ object Y, then I
> would have to make a Y accessor.
>
> X>>y: anY
> y := anY
>
> but this makes no sense as I can still change the `y` object at later date
> breaking everything.
>
> An alternative is having:
>
> X>>initializeWithY: anY
> y := anY.
> self initialize.
>
> X>>y: anY
> ^ self basicNew initalizeWithY: anY.
>
> However I see only 59 initializeWith* methods (in about 6 packages)
> compared to 2302 initialize methods. Thus I am deducing that doing this is
> not very common.
>
> Am I missing something or am I trying to unnecessarily constraint the user
> and I should just trust™ him that he knows what he should use?
>
> As a user of an interface I would prefer not to have useless things
> available that would just break things.
>
> Thanks,
> Peter
>
