Am 25.10.2013 um 15:52 schrieb Sven Van Caekenberghe <[email protected]>:
> The problem with #ensure style selectors is that they are confusing because > they both test something and maybe do something to create a certain > condition. The only way to take away the confusion is to make a very long > selector. That is why comments are also important. > Maybe. I didn’t participate in this discussion. And I don’t know about this obscure consistency rules that this particular selector follows. Languages and consistency rules are probably troublesome most of the time. In this particular case I would it have called just like others,too. That would be ensureDirectoryExists. You can indeed „make sure“ that a „particular object“ has a „certain state“ after the method is done. But in a single case it is always easy to argue. I would need to see the full list to get in trouble . > Like Stef said, this was already debated for quite some time. The current > choice is maybe not perfect, there is nothing stopping anyone from suggesting > a better alternative. Good luck with getting a consensus. > Oh, hell, no. I’m stupid but not completely insane :) Norbert > On 25 Oct 2013, at 15:28, Norbert Hartl <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Stef, >> >> I really don’t want to stretch this into an argue …. but I have problems >> understanding that. There are refactorings of method selectors because it is >> said it is important that includesSubString: is written as >> includesSubstring: and there are other examples. Now we have a selector that >> people find confusing and that is not important? I don’t understand it and >> the only difference I can see by now is the way you or your team is involved >> in the action. So the only thing I would understand is sensitivities meaning >> you are sick of complaints regarding your work. Otherwise I don’t understand >> that. >> >> Norbert >> >> Am 25.10.2013 um 15:04 schrieb Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected]>: >> >>> can we focus on real problems? >>> The method has a comment. >>> >>> Stef >>> >>> On Oct 25, 2013, at 10:39 AM, Norbert Hartl <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Am 25.10.2013 um 10:11 schrieb Nicolas Cellier >>>> <[email protected]>: >>>> >>>>> So action=create object=directory >>>>> you want to be sure that you create a directory? >>>>> What if it already exists? >>>>> Since you want to be sure to create, will you erase and re-create? >>>>> You see the kind of misunderstanding this could create... >>>>> IOW, self ensureCreateMisunderstanding >>>>> >>>> +1 I didn’t like it in the first place. It is just confusing. And probably >>>> an example how hard it can be if two or more non-native speaker try to >>>> find something that makes sense. >>>> >>>> Norbert >>>>> >>>>> 2013/10/25 Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected]> >>>>> Consistency >>>>> ensureActionObject >>>>> >>>>> ensureCreateDirectory >>>>> ensureCreateFile >>>>> >>>>> We discuss a lot with camillo when we did it and I think that this is >>>>> good right now. >>>>> >>>>>> Out of curiosity, what was the motivation behind Issue 10924: Simplifying >>>>>> ensure* and create protocol? >>>>>> >>>>>> For me #ensureCreateDirectory is less intention revealing than >>>>>> #ensureDirectory because the "ensure" means "create only if necessary", >>>>>> not >>>>>> "definitely create" a directory. What am I missing? Thanks. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ----- >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Sean >>>>>> -- >>>>>> View this message in context: >>>>>> http://forum.world.st/ensureCreateDirectory-tp4716925.html >>>>>> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at >>>>>> Nabble.com. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > >
