I think that Cr is useless because they are to separate line in text and I want to kill text and just get objects (that can produce text but from a list of objects I easily can add a cr between their printstring :)
Stef On May 5, 2013, at 11:34 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <s...@stfx.eu> wrote: > > 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 > >
