On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Frank Shearar <[email protected]>wrote:
> On 25 July 2012 11:42, Mariano Martinez Peck <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Guys. Did I miss something or ContextPart>>copyTo: should be renamed to > > #copyUpTo: ? > > You feel that #copyTo: implies an inclusive bound? There's only one > #copyTo: implementor (ContextPart) and only one #copyUpTo: > (SequenceableCollection) and both are "up to and including" copies. In > other words there isn't a clear precedence one way or the other for > having #copyTo: meaning either "and including" or "not including". > Your argument is, I guess, that there should be? (The method comments > are perfectly clear on what both method do, at least.) > > With #copyTo: I feel that I am copying from one place (source) to a target, when what it actually does (if I understood correctly) is to copy the source (receiver) up to the parameter (stop there). So #copyTo: is totally misleading. > frank > > > Thanks, > > > > -- > > Mariano > > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com > > > > -- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com
