I would be for: - deprecate #categories - add #protocols but not answering a string. Answer the protocol objects.
after all, the whole purpose of this is to reify the protocol concept. and of course, Nicolas is right… protocols *should not* answer allProtocol… or any other virtual protocol. I agree that answering in #categories is an error too… if we are going to change it, let’s not carry the original mistake. Esteban On 28 May 2014, at 18:16, Nicolas Cellier <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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--
