2014-05-29 0:43 GMT+02:00 Esteban Lorenzano <[email protected]>: > 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 > > +1, that sounds better, then #protocols is not just another rename but a value change.
In that case, first revert #categories (remove --all--), - #categories -> #categoriesAndPseudoCategories - #realCategories -> #categories backport to Pharo 3.1, deprecate it in 4.0 (grace period for package maintenance...) One can allways arrange to add #categories later in a compatibility layer. Nicolas > > 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-- > > >
