2014-01-29 Nicolai Hess <nicolaih...@web.de> > 2014-01-29 Sean P. DeNigris <s...@clipperadams.com> > >> Nicolai Hess wrote >> > And I don't like the name either. >> > I would prefere Binding or ValueBinding. >> >> Guys, I don't love the name either, but can we do a little better than "I >> don't like it". The purpose of ValueHolder's existence was to notify >> changes >> to its value. A reactive variable, from FRP, kinda-sorta does that. How >> does >> Binding = 'I will notify of changes to my value'?! >> >> >> >> ----- >> Cheers, >> Sean >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://forum.world.st/Issues-12717-and-12684-tp4739761p4740024.html >> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at >> Nabble.com. >> >> > We don't need to argue about names, > ReactiveVariable is not wrong, I just don't like it:-) > > I just wanted to emphase on the missing discussion. > Doing this change after the Pharo3 release may be more > difficult than now. Even if it is a bit late. > So, I am happy we have at least both. (We should > try to force the use of the new name.) > > > (Binding or PropertyBinding is how it is called in > QTs QML) > > > Nicolai >
Binding already has another semantic in Smalltalk. It's a kind of value holder used for shared variables (global/class/pool variables). It is not equipped with events mechanism nor mutex. So maybe PropertyBinding could do it...
