> On 13 Sep 2019, at 14:11, Esteban Maringolo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Some examples of testing methods verb prefixes I use:
>
> shouldXxx (#shouldOverwrite)
> isXxx (#isEmpty #isNil
> hasXxx (#hasContents)
> canXxx (#canDeleteProperty)
>
> didXxx (#didRemoveFiles)
> willXxx (#willCreateNewAssets)
this is for the following ones that I do not like that the only difference
between an action and a question is an s
> usesXxx (#usesDirectTransfer)
> containsXxx (#containsPlots)
> definesXxx (#definesGlobals)
>
> I'm in favor of having more symbols available as binary selectors, but
> I don't see the use of ? and ! as unary selectors other than the
> technical challenge of making the change, with the added burden of
> breaking compatibility.
>
> In a perfect world no testing is required and everything is solved by
> delegation, but we all know that sometimes the added complexity is not
> worth it.
:)
If only
For the pretty printer we have around 30 different parameters.
I do not imagine my self having 30 classes to which I would delegate something.
>
> Regards,
>
> Esteban A. Maringolo
>
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 9:00 AM Tim Mackinnon <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> +1 for #shouldXxx I recall I use it a lot too, and #isXxx where that reads
>> better but am struggling for examples.
>>
>> Tim
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On 13 Sep 2019, at 02:37, Mariano Martinez Peck <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 4:10 AM ducasse <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 11 Sep 2019, at 04:07, James Foster <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Would use of ? and ! in unary/keyword selectors be convention or somehow
>>>> required? If simply convention, then we should start with renaming testing
>>>> methods to be named is* or has*.
>>>> flag1 := anInteger even. “not good"
>>>> flag2 := anInteger isEven. “better"
>>>> flag3 := anInteger even?. “how much better?”
>>>> flag4 := #(1 2 3) includes?: 2. “how much better?”
>>>
>>> I think that I would use ? mainly for unary message
>>>
>>> Now I’m sure that if you look carefully some people use
>>>
>>> include
>>> for the action
>>> includes
>>> for the tests
>>>
>>> I took include as an example and this is super not intention revealing.
>>>
>>>>> lineUpBlockBrackets
>>>
>>> lineUpBlockBrackets?
>>> Now I will rewrite them all as shouldLineUpBlockBrackets or
>>> isLineUpBlockBrackets and to me for unary message ? makes it a lot better.
>>>
>>
>> Hi Stef,
>>
>> I have been facing this ambiguity a lot too. And my workaround, most of the
>> times, was also to prefer the "question" method with #should. #is just
>> doesn't sound right in my cases, but #should does sound good in most of
>> them. I would still like to find a better one, but for the moment, in my
>> recent years, I am stuck with #should.
>>
>> --
>> Mariano Martinez Peck
>> Email: [email protected]
>> Twitter: @MartinezPeck
>> LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/mariano-martinez-peck
>> Blog: https://marianopeck.wordpress.com/
>
