Quite interesting! I was wondering about the correlation to number of
arguments due to the particularities of the keyword syntax which might give
longer method names in the first place.
Best,
Kasper
On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 at 07:10, Jerry Kott wrote:
> Interesting…
>
> I am curious about the purpose of this analysis (other than the
> ‘interesting-ness’ of it). Sure, some names read like sentences, but that
> beats the ’strcpy()’, doesn’t it? I love that in Smalltalk / Pharo, I don’t
> have to
Interesting…
I am curious about the purpose of this analysis (other than the
‘interesting-ness’ of it). Sure, some names read like sentences, but that beats
the ’strcpy()’, doesn’t it? I love that in Smalltalk / Pharo, I don’t have to
remember cryptic function names and can make the code
On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 at 12:43, K K Subbu wrote:
> Nice graph, Ben! The larger test names (selector size > 100) look more
> like sentences than names ;-).
>
> On 21/06/19 6:50 AM, Ben Coman wrote:
> > classes := Object allSubclasses select: [ :cc | cc isKindOf:
> > TestCase class ].
> >
Nice graph, Ben! The larger test names (selector size > 100) look more
like sentences than names ;-).
On 21/06/19 6:50 AM, Ben Coman wrote:
classes := Object allSubclasses select: [ :cc | cc isKindOf:
TestCase class ].
methods := c flatCollect: [ :c | c allMethods ].
Did you mean
Working on the Exercism project to shorten generated test method names,
for comparison I reviewed the length of test method names in Pharo 7.
So just for curiousity value, here is that graph (done in Excel)...
[image: image.png]
Data generated by...
classes := Object allSubclasses select: [
