Hehehe. While I was considering whether or not to chip in on this thread, two thoughts passed through my mind.
The first was that this is one of those annoying silent failures that Wilhelm would surely pick up on (so I didn't need to bring it up). The second was that #copyFrom: really should be called #copyStateFrom: to more accurately reflect what it does, and should be used for. So now this reply is completely redundant, since Wilhelm also suggested the same thing, or maybe I should just stop here and write "+1" instead :-p -- Cheers, Peter On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 7:39 PM, Schwab,Wilhelm K <[email protected]>wrote: > Wow. In fairness, Dolphin has one or two such oddities. IIRC, the > confusion there is that external arrays (DOUBLE, DWORD, etc.) respond to > #copyFrom:to: in terms of bytes, not elements. > > The problem in this case appears to be that > > 'a string with some stuff in it' copyFrom:5 > > should blow up because 5 is not a suitable source (a string of some type) > from which to copy a string's state. Once it properly reports abuse, we can > then move on to asking whether we want a copying selector that can be so > easily confused with copying from an index. It might be better named > #copyStateFrom:?? > > Sorry to beat the usual drum, but it fits: silent failures need to be > hunted down and killed. > > Bill > > > > ________________________________________ > From: [email protected] [ > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Stéphane Ducasse > [[email protected]] > Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2011 1:29 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] An intuitive (or screwed) #copyFrom: > > HI sebastian > > If I remember correctly you are not the only one bitten by it :) so we > should do something > > Object>>copyFrom: anotherObject > "Copy to myself all instance variables I have in common with > anotherObject. This is dangerous because it ignores an object's control > over its own inst vars. " > > Now you enumeration is too complex for me :) > > > I ask because, if so, situation goes like this: > > > > A. we think again and decide to do the right thing or we go with the > alternative which is > > B. we leave it as invalid, as it is right now, and > > 1. we mislead even to smalltalkers not familiarized to squeak/pharo > > 2. we rationalize some clever way to see it as a feature even if it > will mislead everybody (even ourselves in a hurry) > > 3. we lay a foundation to lightly use protocol that is typically > used in collections (to do dangerous things like instVar manipulation) > > 4. we break encapsulation and manipulate extremely primitive things > in a common sounding selector. > > 5. we work harder on trying to give the impression that we're > leaving it like that because we're smarter than the confused people that > tried to use it (proving to them that we're dumb) > > 6. we get involved in an unnecessarily complicated way of thinking > that will complicate unnecessarily our future (guaranteed) > > 7. we learn how to maintain a screwed attitude in front of people > trying to use intuition when using pharo > > 8. we stay comfortable (on the wrong foundation and for the wrong > reasons) > > > > That would leave us with this question in the table: > > > > what is compatible with the Pharo's mission? is it A or B? > > My state of mind is always to make the world better :) > > Now > - did you check the senders to copyFrom:? > sounds ok not so many so we could deprecated it easily > > - did you check in other Smalltalk if this method is used or not? > VW not in Object but in probe something > > - did you check the ansi standard? > I guess that this is not there. > > The finder says: > 'if this isn''t broken' . 15 . 'broken' > > no single method, strange.... but indeed > 'if this isn''t broken' . 15 . 20 . 'broken' find copyFrom:to: > > Now what would be a better name > > copyFromObject: > > then > > on String>>copyFrom: ? > > Even if I would prefer (but it sucks) String>>copyFromIndex: but this is > more coherent with copyFrom: index to: another > > > Stef >
