2016-12-06 19:29 GMT+01:00 John Brant <[email protected]>: > > We could make it configurable. "Manually" accessors will be generated in > simplified mode and related refactorings will use intelligent mode > > My personal preference would be to ask the user what to do when performing > the accessor refactoring. If the class hierarchy already has a method with > the name of the variable, we can look at that method and determine what to > do. In the case of #name, we could see that it is defined in a superclass > and ask if it is ok to override the method (likely a good choice, but not > always so it is good to confirm with the user). If the class directly > defines the method, and that method has a return that returns the variable, > then we can ask if they want to use that method as the “accessor” even > though it does some other stuff (and potential returns a different value). > Finally, if some subclass defines the method, then we can ask if they want > to create that method even though some subclass is overriding it. Of > course, we could have any combination of all three too. If they want a > different method, then we should ask what to name the method instead of > appending a number to the name.
Ok. You prefer tons of questions to user just to perform stupid accessors generation. And, please, don't say that it is rare cases. It is quite common which nicely shown here 18880 <https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/18880/Autogenerating-accessors-should-be-less-naive> . I wonder do you have *real* experience when it protected you from destroying system? We only talk about simple accessors refactoring.
