2016-07-28 12:56 GMT+02:00 Esteban Lorenzano <[email protected]>: > I do not like either the “virus” name. > not just because is negative in a subjective way… also it hides what it > does inside a fantasy name, and that IMO is negative to self discovery of > the system. > > I mean… a framework can have a fantasy name… but a class? A method name? > (#infect:… come on!) > > I know is “cool", but if I read the code below, I have NO CLUE of what is > going to happen, and that’s not good. >
virus := GHObjectVirus behaviour: GHGhostBehaviourStub new. > > victim := 0@0 corner: 3@4. > virus infect: victim. As any framework you need to know something about it. And description here is quite simple: virus is a guy who changes behaviour of infected objects. What you think about renaming virus to mutation? mutation := GHObjectMutation behaviour: GHGhostBehaviourStub new. victim := 0@0 corner: 3@4. mutation infect: victim. Is it makes any sense for you? You should understand that ObjectVirus is specific kind of ghost for real object interception. It is not general proxy because it make concrete decisions about class side behaviour of infected instances and about their meta level. Also there are other "real object ghosts" (I remember Guille is implementing Membrane). I try to say that it is quite difficult to call different kind of ghosts without distinguishing them by some kind of metaphor. It is easy to be lost inside many "general" proxy names.
