On Apr 24, 2011, at 6:49 PM, Alexandre Bergel wrote: >> give a try and see. I think that this is important. > > Yes it is. > >> We can even publish something out of it :) > > That's a side effect that cannot be avoided :-)
;-) so even better. > > Alexandre > >> >> On Apr 24, 2011, at 6:17 PM, Alexandre Bergel wrote: >> >>>>> - each public method belongs to a method category named public* >>>>> - each private method belongs to a method category named private* >>>> >>>> Others here may disagree -- and the dreary of legislating and >>>> enforcing conventions aside -- but I strive (usually with success) to >>>> move all privately-used methods to one or more delegates. One class's >>>> private method is just another's public??? >>> >>> A private method may have to access instances variables. Moving the method >>> to another class may be difficult sometimes. >>> >>>>> - other methods are considered as "package visible", meaning that they >>>>> belong to a category that does not begins with 'private' or 'public' >>>> >>>> Again, I sympathise with facing the visibility problem, but I don't >>>> trust that conventions will be upheld by either end, so I tire of >>>> following them. Replace Pharo/Squeak categories with Newspeak >>>> modules; replace Pharo/Squeak protocols with traits (stateless, >>>> please); I'll be the first in line. >>> >>> I do not think this should be enforced. It is easy to infer method >>> visibility with a set of well defined scenarios, for example the one that >>> comes in unit tests. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Alexandre >>> -- >>> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: >>> Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu >>> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > -- > _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: > Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu > ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. > > > > > >
