On 26/5/14 19:19, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote:
Object>>#name should be removed,
+1
it is possible, I tried it once.
Most senders of #name are asking for the name of a class.
On 26 May 2014, at 18:15, Stephan Eggermont wrote:
Do I understand correctly that name is to be understood as ins
jfabry wrote
> +1 on the removal of Object>>#name.
+1. It is a trap, especially for new users...
-
Cheers,
Sean
--
View this message in context:
http://forum.world.st/name-selector-tp4760402p4760542.html
Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
+ 1
Norbert
Am 26.05.2014 um 19:19 schrieb Sven Van Caekenberghe :
> Object>>#name should be removed, it is possible, I tried it once.
> Most senders of #name are asking for the name of a class.
>
> On 26 May 2014, at 18:15, Stephan Eggermont wrote:
>
>> Do I understand correctly that name is
On May 26, 2014, at 3:08 PM, Esteban A. Maringolo wrote:
> 2014-05-26 15:14 GMT-03:00 Johan Fabry :
>>
>> +1 on the removal of Object>>#name.
>
> Everybody got bitten by the accessor creation of #name: and #name1 :)
Bitten? No. Annoyed? Yes yes yes. :-)
---> Save our in-boxes! http://email
2014-05-26 20:08 GMT+01:00 Esteban A. Maringolo :
> 2014-05-26 15:14 GMT-03:00 Johan Fabry :
> >
> > +1 on the removal of Object>>#name.
>
> Everybody got bitten by the accessor creation of #name: and #name1 :)
>
I hear you!
2014-05-26 15:14 GMT-03:00 Johan Fabry :
>
> +1 on the removal of Object>>#name.
Everybody got bitten by the accessor creation of #name: and #name1 :)
Esteban A. Maringolo
+1 on the removal of Object>>#name.
On May 26, 2014, at 1:19 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote:
> Object>>#name should be removed, it is possible, I tried it once.
> Most senders of #name are asking for the name of a class.
>
> On 26 May 2014, at 18:15, Stephan Eggermont wrote:
>
>> Do I under
Object>>#name should be removed, it is possible, I tried it once.
Most senders of #name are asking for the name of a class.
On 26 May 2014, at 18:15, Stephan Eggermont wrote:
> Do I understand correctly that name is to be understood as inspectorName
> and so should never be implemented as subcla
Do I understand correctly that name is to be understood as inspectorName
and so should never be implemented as subclass responsibility?
Stephan
