> #printString and #printOn: protocol should be used for printing and #asString > for conversion. This implies that #asString should not depend on #print > protocol.
Ah, I used it the other way around: printOn depends on asString. I saw 'conversion' as the lower level. Why do you distinguish here between conversion and 'printing'? Especially if displayString is being replaced with asString - to me that sounds against your thinking in principle. > If we are going to use #asString to mimic #displayString (instead of as a > conversion method) then to me #asString should be viewed at a higher level > abstraction than #printOn:. If not then we can run into these issues when > calling the higher-level abstraction from a lower level in the same objectt, > as you mentioned. Calling #printString from #asString from an API perspective > should not cause issues (as displaying something is very different from > converting something) so I’d say this is an API design problem. Yes, I think the API could be clearer. So this becomes the essence of the question here: What is the meaning of these methods from an API perspective? Thanks for the response
