Am 25.06.2014 um 16:55 schrieb Esteban A. Maringolo <[email protected]>:
> 2014-06-25 11:52 GMT-03:00 Esteban Lorenzano <[email protected]>: >> >> On 25 Jun 2014, at 11:49, Marcus Denker <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> On 25 Jun 2014, at 16:43, Esteban A. Maringolo <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Slot >>>> \SimpleSlot (current iv slot) >>> >>> Yes, the naming of that one… I think we just need to take the freedom of >>> iterating. >>> For now I called it “InstanceVariableSlot”, but that might be confusing and >>> it is a long word. >> >> but is less confusing than “SimpleSlot”, which basically says nothing, IMO > > What about SimpleInstanceVariableSlot? (just kidding) > > I don't like over descriptive class names. Because they restrict you > from using it for other, unexpected, purposes or contexts. > The question to me is why this is "over descriptive". We have a tradition here to be descriptive and intention revealing. It happens everywhere except when it comes to instance variables it is instVarAt: instVarNamed: etc. I never liked them. Another question might be the usage context. Why is it called InstanceVariableSlot anyway? Is there a difference if the slot is attached to the instance side or class side? Isn't it really just a VariableSlot? The context for the instance is where it is used. Asking an object for instance variables and class instance variables could just return a collection of VariableSlots, no? Norbert
