I don't think we should come up with a new naming scheme every now and then. If I look at the read-only support there the selector is
beReadOnlyObject so in this case it should be bePinnedObject I didn't like the extra Object at the end but now I think it makes it clear and still steps aside for user code to implement something like pin/unpin/bePinned Norbert > Am 11.09.2017 um 11:56 schrieb Denis Kudriashov <[email protected]>: > > Anybody else? > > 2017-08-31 10:29 GMT+02:00 Pavel Krivanek <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>: > > > 2017-08-31 10:24 GMT+02:00 Denis Kudriashov <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>: > Hi. > > We now have very generic message names: > - pin > - unpin > - setPinned: > - isPinned > > Problem that they collide with possible domain related names. > For example I implemented pinning of tabs in Calypso and I found that I > overrides #pin and #isPinned messages. Then I fix it with different names. > Probably menus also uses pin word but without overrides > > What you think about renaming pinning messages? Something like: > - pinMemory > > I would use pinInMemory > > -- Pavel > > - unpinMemory > - isMemoryPinned > - setPinnedMemory: > - pinMemoryDuring: (if we will introduce it) > > I think it is easy to do now because not much code uses pinning > >
