+1 especially when this is specific to a given system
> I like the idea of using fooValue: instead of value:. > > On 10/30/10 14:15 , Tudor Girba wrote: >> We use this pattern in Mondrian scripts, Glamour scripts, and in Moose >> scripts for navigating models. >> >> However, we are most of the times doing it with other Symbol selectors. For >> example: >> - in Mondrian, we use moValue: >> - in Glamour, we use glamourValue: >> >> Using dedicated extensions enable us to control the kinds of semantics we >> want in the scripting. For example, the glamourValue: is different from >> moValue:. >> >> Cheers, >> Doru >> >> >> On 30 Oct 2010, at 22:56, Andres Valloud wrote: >> >>> Mariano, >>> >>> On 10/30/10 13:14 , Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: >>> >>>> 100% agree. It was just funny for me, how could I do that, just >>>> implementing Synbol>> value: >>>> Just something curious and funny. Not to really use it. >>> >>> I agree with this, polymorphism is awesome. For instance, something I did >>> with Assessments was to make objects polymorphic with classes. This device >>> allows Assessments to run SUnit tests without needing to touch any of the >>> test case classes (you can just create pseudo-classes that pretend to be >>> the classes you need but can't have). And you get to implement #new on the >>> instance side :). >>> >>> Andres. >>> >> >> -- >> www.tudorgirba.com >> >> "Be rather willing to give than demanding to get." >> >> >> >> . >> >
