doru
why we do not introduce displayString as suggested long time ago and
default displayString to printString?
Stef
On 6/10/14 13:33, Tudor Girba wrote:
Hi,
Yes, the label does introduce redundancy in some cases, but that is
because the use of printString has to be rethought :)
printString was used for a long time as a primary inspection tool.
Because of that it tries to do too much (like adding the class name),
and it is certainly not suitable for a label.
gtDisplayString is meant for labeling the content of the object. It is
used also for things like a list. As soon as you will do something
with your objects, you will want to have something smaller. There is
no need to have the class part of that string. Relying on that
convention is brittle, as it is easy for people to not have the class
name in there. But, for an inspector, having the class at all times is
a prerequisite, so that will be displayed always separately (to ensure
that the right information is offered).
gtDisplayString relies on printString by default, so people can
provide the labels at their convenience.
Cheers,
Doru
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 1:20 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <s...@stfx.eu
<mailto:s...@stfx.eu>> wrote:
I think the titles of GT-Inspector windows/panes are a bit silly:
Notice the 'a ZnClient(a ZnClient)' and 'a Dictionary(a
Dictionary(...))' where the class name is repeated.
I think it is very important to honour the standard/general
Smalltalk approach and assume the #printString already contains
the class name. If not, you are basically punishing everybody who
went through the trouble of writing custom #printString
implementation (like me, I do this for most classes).
I saw the whole #display thing, but you can't force everybody to
rewrite #printString to #gtDisplayString or whatever.
Sven
--
www.tudorgirba.com <http://www.tudorgirba.com>
"Every thing has its own flow"
