On 25 July 2012 13:19, Mariano Martinez Peck <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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.
By that argument the correct name would be #copyFromSelfTo: or #copyFromHereTo:, neither of which look appetising. (The names would semi-parallel SequenceableCollection's #copyFrom:to:, only a ContextPart is already an element in a collection.) frank >> frank >> >> > Thanks, >> > >> > -- >> > Mariano >> > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com >> > >> > > > > -- > Mariano > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com >
