On Feb 1, 2014, at 12:39 PM, "Torsten Bergmann" <[email protected]> wrote:
> OK, back to topic and to summarize: we now all fully understood that the
> original message
> including pools is still there, will not break code loading or other things
> and that the
> change is on the Nautilus level.
Yes, thanks for understanding and summarizing well.
> But still the simple question left to be anwered here: what will this change
> of reducing the
> class template in the default browser give us? What problem did it really
> solve?
>
> The answer given so far is that it may be problematic when teaching because
> you want to
> introduce to language features step by step. But you said yourself in your
> own post
> that
>
> <quote>
> It is BORING to have to say to kids:
> - do not care of classvar
> - do not care of pooldictionaries
> </quote>
>
> So my question: if you are bored of the "complexity" of BOTH (!)
> - why do we hide pools now
> - and leave class variables still left in the template?
>
> I really do not understand because with the change it now looks in
> Pharo3.0 Latest update: #30732 like this:
>
> Object subclass: #Foo
> instanceVariableNames: ''
> classVariableNames: ''
> category: 'Bar'
>
> So why do we keep class vars then? According to your mail we would have to
> remove them too.
From my point of view this is a different design decision to take since it is a
different feature of the language. So it is not included in the change that I
proposed. And BTW I leave it to somebody else to make the call and propose a
change to Pharo that addresses this (or not, as may be the case).
> Additionally this change violates the intention of a template (which one
> usually just has to fill out)
> and one now has to remember the original full keyword and have to type it in
> again - which is IMHO
> really awkward and stupid.
>
> So with all respect: I still can not see the introduction of the reduced
> template as a step forward
> or an improvement.
For me, this reduces to the case of Traits. A low usage (arguably), so uses: is
not present in the template. We do the same for pooldictionaries. If you are
against this, and say that you should just fill in the template, then logically
you should be against how Traits are handled. Following that logic, you are
advocating for:
Object subclass: #NameOfSubclass
uses: ''
instanceVariableNames: ''
classVariableNames: ''
poolDictionaries: ''
category: ''
Am I correct?
---> Save our in-boxes! http://emailcharter.org <---
Johan Fabry - http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry
PLEIAD lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile
