On Jan 30, 2013, at 7:20 PM, Nicolas Cellier wrote: > In st-80 these were protocols and the name make you think of it differently.
nicolas normally in the book we use protocols and I normally picky about it. I do not like categories even for classes :) So I will check. Stef > If you want to continue thinking of it in term of category, then I understand > your miss-conception. > I'm curious to know when the term category was introduced... > Maybe with Monticello where it means 'Package'? > Clever hacks sometimes are not that clever... > > Nicolas > > 2013/1/30 Norbert Hartl <[email protected]> > > Am 30.01.2013 um 22:03 schrieb Nicolas Cellier > <[email protected]>: > >> First, these are not categories. categories are for classes. >> These are protocols. > > Well, that's one reason I took the term "uncategorized". If I take the > context menu in the category (!) pane I see > > <Bildschirmfoto 2013-01-30 um 22.17.17.png> > > So it looks to me that pharo has the notion of categories for organizing > methods. > >> >> A protocol is like an interface, or you can view it as services >> offered by the instances of this class... >> For example take a look at Number you have >> 'comparing', is a very generic service, so that any object can be in a set >> numbers have this property to have full order, so they offer a bit >> more than = and hash >> 'printing' a very generic Object protocol too for interacting >> (inspectors, debuggers...) >> 'arithmetic' is some more specialized service offered by numbers >> 'mathematical functions' too. >> > The category is a service for humans made by humans. The methods in e.g. > "comparing" would work the same without a category. I think we can agree on > the fact that relying on categories in code is mostly something not > desirable. > >> If the classification helps a lot, IMHO it's not only related to the >> number of messages. >> It helps to declare/discover which service will be offered, and those >> can be completely transversal (printing vs comparing). >> >> 'private' has a value too, as there is no service to expect here... >> >> So I have to disagree. I see these as essentials. >> > I did not decline that categories _can_ be useful and in fact they are. I'm > also inclined to say that it is a good thing having all methods categorized > in the distributed pharo image. So lint rules and such testing is good. But > at the same time I don't see a point in enforcing it for everyone by choosing > a stronger or even insulting term (at that point I decided to reply) for > uncategorized methods. > > Norbert > >> Nicolas >> >> 2013/1/30 Norbert Hartl <[email protected]>: >>> >>> Am 29.01.2013 um 16:57 schrieb Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected]>: >>> >>>> Hi guys >>>> >>>> I spend my time recategorizing methods. >>>> >>>> I would like the change the intention of 'as yet unclassified' because >>>> this is a PLAGUE. >>>> It is like throwing papers on the floor. >>>> So we should have a different name to indicate that it should be fixed. >>>> >>>> >>>> Any ideas? >>>> >>>> 'you are a dirty programmer - change me' >>>> >>> >>> To be honest I have problems understanding why method categorization is so >>> important. Often I don't care a single bit about categories because I don't >>> understand them. I often categorize just to make lint happy :) >>> What is the use? Declaring usage patterns? Declaring visibility? Use as >>> method extensions marker? anything you like just classify? I can understand >>> that it can help making the access of certain methods of a class easier. >>> But that is particular true for classes with a lot of methods. Most of the >>> classes are rather small. In most of my own developments I would consider >>> most huge classes a design problem in my code. So I would try to fix that. >>> And finally it is not easy to learn about them because the browser is not >>> helping. If you browse through the methods of a class the category pane >>> doesn't get updated. So even if I want to learn by getting used to them it >>> is hard. >>> >>> I would make the none categorized term weaker by naming it "uncategorizied" >>> so at least I have the change to deliberately not categorizing my methods >>> without being annoyed by someones opinion about what is essential. >>> >>> my 2 cents, >>> >>> Norbert >> > >
