Hi, I would prefer if this thread does not transform in a terminology debate too much.
Example is a term that fits both the code and the returning object. <gtExample> is applied on a method and it primarily describes that method. The term “example” also describes the meta object that is wraps the concrete return value with the information from the method (for example, the label of the example, the link to the subject, or the dependencies to other examples). The example term is also important from the metaphor point of view: "we learn from examples”. Cheers, Doru > On Dec 19, 2016, at 3:34 AM, Ben Coman <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 5:49 AM, Tudor Girba <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> As you might know, a while ago we created GTExamples, a framework that >> supports both example-based live documentation and testing: >> http://gtoolkit.org/doc/Examples/examples.html >> >> GTExamples was part of the GTInspector for a while, but as it evolved, we >> pulled it out in a separate project. This separate project is not in Pharo >> anymore but it is part of the full GToolkit configuration (Pharo only ships >> the core of GToolkit). The idea of taking GTExamples out was to allow the >> community to have a more elaborate discussion about the role of examples in >> our environment. >> >> I have invited you to join that conversation, but it did not take off. I >> understand that perhaps the topic does not look appealing at this moment. >> >> We will certainly continue to evolve GTExamples both on the semantics level >> of the dependency constructs and on the integration with tools. Our goal is >> to enable a new practice that I would like to call Example-Guilded >> Development (or Example-Driven Development), and position Pharo to be the >> only platform on which someone can do that. But, that is our goal, and does >> not have to be the same with other people’s goal. >> >> Right now, GTExamples relies on the <gtExample> pragma to denote a method >> that returns an object that exemplifies something. > > > I've previously not done a good job of promoting the use of <sample> > for this. I'll try spinning this wheel once more. > > There are two concepts to consider: > * The returned object. > * The method code that creates the returned object. > > The "returned object" is best considered a <sample>. > The "method code" is best considered an <example> that produces the sample. > http://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-example-and-vs-sample/ > > The term "exemplifies/exemplification" associates equally with both... > * http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/example > * http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/sample > but for example... from a draw full of cutlery you don't "take an > example spoon", you "take a sample spoon". > > > So it depends on where you want the focus to be. > * If the focus is on working with a sample object, then <sample> makes > a better pragma for the method creating it. > * If the focus is on the code producing the sample, then <example> is > a better choice. > > Maybe you are constrained by existing industry terminology, > but "Example-Driven Development" might be equally called > "Sample-Driven Development". > Without having read into the topic, intuitively the former broadly > encompasses copying static code > while the latter feels more limited to working with an object. > > > My proposal... > * <sample> provides a narrower sense of side-effect-free provision of > object to work with. "Samples are often tangible parts and can be > observed" > * <example> provides a broader sense of showing how things work > together, in ways that may or may-not include side effects that you > don't actually want to execute - just to refer to. "Examples are used > [to] illustrate something. [Its] expected that the example will be > imitated and replicated among its audience." > * <script> provides a sense of system management, of methods causing > significant side effects. You won't want to copy these methods, just > make use them. > > <sampleScript> feels awkward to apply to examples, since by my these > are neither samples nor scripts. > > > cheers -ben > > >> Executing this method as an example should have no side-effects (either >> because the method itself does not have a side-effect, or because the >> example method defines how the cleanup should happen using the mechanism >> provided by GTExamples). >> >> This meaning is different from the meaning of the <example> pragma used >> through Pharo. There are currently 55 places that use this pragma inside >> Pharo and most of them come from FastTable. As things will progress and more >> libraries might use GTExamples, the situation can become confusing. >> >> To make things less confusing in the future, I would like to define the >> meaning of the <example> to denote a method that returns an object without >> having side effects. Would you agree with this? >> >> If yes, I would suggest the name of the new pragma that would replace the >> existing one to include “script” in the name. For example, <sampleScript>. >> >> What do you think? >> >> Cheers, >> Doru >> >> >> -- >> www.tudorgirba.com >> www.feenk.com >> >> "Reasonable is what we are accustomed with." -- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com “Software has no shape. Actually, it has no one shape. It has many."
