On 05 May 2013, at 21:42, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.duca...@inria.fr> wrote:
> Hi guys > > Stupidly I introduced log: a while ago to replace Transcript show:. Now is > the current situation. > > I still want to remove all the use of Transcript show: > > Now since I thought I did a mistake with log: because it overload > Integer>>log: I introduced trace: and traceCr: > > Now I do not like traceCr: because it is not a cool message. > > So what do we do: > > 1) we use crLog:, logCr: > and deprecated log: > > > 2) we use crTrace:, trace: and traceCr: > > I really prefer solution 1 but I would like to hear from you. > > Stef I am for 1 as well, but I find #crLog: or #logCr: confusing - there should only be one system wide approach. Also, whether or not to add a Cr to a log message (or before or after it) is not a decision a client/user should have to make. Maybe Cr makes no sense, for example when log messages are added to a collection. So I am for #log: as a simple and clear message. The conflict with Number>>#log: is less important than that IMHO. Either we live with the conflict or we rename Number>>#log: to Number>>#logBase: or something like that. I also like the convention of #value being sent by #log: to its argument. That allows for blocks that are not evaluated when logging is disabled. My 2c. Sven -- Sven Van Caekenberghe http://stfx.eu Smalltalk is the Red Pill
