> On 09 Apr 2015, at 20:32, Dmitri Zagidulin <[email protected]> wrote: > > +1 to standardizing #uniqueInstance. but as I said… not always.
> > Also, would it be appropriate to mark intended singleton creation methods > with a pragma? (So that they could be flagged as special in the UI, etc). no, we should not abuse the use of pragmas. tools can recognise appropriate selectors (like it happens with initialisation, etc.) without need to pollute the code. Esteban > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 6:21 AM, Esteban Lorenzano <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> On 08 Apr 2015, at 12:01, Peter Uhnák <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Esteban Lorenzano <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> > On 08 Apr 2015, at 11:37, Yuriy Tymchuk <[email protected] >> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> > >> > Sometimes I use #new >> that’s horrible! >> completely misleading >> >> I'm curious, if it is singleton, should you worry from outside about the >> fact that it is a singleton? Shouldn't that be hidden from the user? > > nope. > new means new. > you are confusing your user if you send a new message and you receive an > already existing (aka not new) object. > the literature existing always recommend to use an specific method (usually > #instance or #uniqueInstance, in smalltalk.. who decided to use > #uniqueInstance as a convention). > > Esteban > >> >> Peter > >
