2014-05-28 22:49 GMT+02:00 stepharo <[email protected]>: > > On 26/5/14 23:07, GOUBIER Thierry wrote: > >> In my own code, I allways use ClassOrganization>>#realCategories to >> avoid getting the --all-- category. I consider the --all-- category to be a >> GUI artifact, not a class organization concept. >> >> I'd prefer a #protocols (without the --all-- category, of course :)) so >> ok for deprecating #categories. >> > > +1 :) > >> >> Thierry >> ________________________________________ >> De : Pharo-dev [[email protected]] de la part de Esteban >> Lorenzano [[email protected]] >> Envoyé : lundi 26 mai 2014 21:20 >> À : Pharo Development List >> Objet : [Pharo-dev] is ClassOrganization>>#categories right? >> >> Hi, >> >> I wonder is current implementation of that method is good: right now, it >> answers all categories, including virtual ones (—all—). >> A lot of things are made in that assumption, but I wonder if is not >> better to answer just real categories and to create a new method called >> #allCategories to answer the reals and the virtuals. >> >> Also, I wonder if wouldn’t be better to just deprecate #categories and >> use the correct abstraction: #protocols. >> >> any opinions? >> >> Esteban >> >> >> > > -1 The sole purpose of categories is to provide backward compatibility support, or am I mistaken?
If it's for backward compatibility, why the hell rename it? We have #categories -> #realCategories (to avoid bogus --all-- inclusion) and now -> #protocols That's way too much erraticity. If the purpose is driving buts people caring of package management and cross dialect compatibility, then +1, it's a successfull path ;) I know, I know, Pharo values clean API - protocols ;) - more than compatibility, but cleaning a message dedicated to compatibility somehow sounds too much. If you opt for protocols, at least, please remove --all--
