Hi, I also vote for the xyzAt:put: pattern, even though propertyAt: sounds less English than propertyNamed:.
Cheers, Doru On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Marcus Denker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 15 Aug 2015, at 10:46, stepharo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Excellent initiative. > > > > In Moose we get > > > > propertyNamed: propertyName > > propertyNamed: name ifAbsentPut: value > > propertyNamed: propertyName ifNil: aBlock > > propertyNamed: name put: value > > > Ah, no, this is version (5). I guess #propertyValueNamed: would be number > 6). > > > So which one do we take? > > I would use the one that is most close to what we do with #at: > > The thing is that all these additional words have no meaning. (named, > value). That’s why everyone uses another one. > > I think we should have just and API following #at: and #at:put: with > “property” attached to it. > Simple, learnable, easy. > > which is (2). > > propertyAt: > > > Stef > > > > Le 15/8/15 10:24, Marcus Denker a écrit : > >> Hi, > >> > >> I am now adding a property API to Global/Class Variables and Instance > Variables (aka Slots). > >> > >> When looking at the other property APIs, we have 4 different > conventions: > >> > >> 1) CompiledMethod and Behavior: > >> > >> propertyValueAt: > >> > >> 2) RB AST Nodes: > >> propertyAt: > >> > >> 3) Ring: > >> annotationNamed: > >> > >> and (4) Morphic uses: > >> valueOfProperty: > >> > >> > >> I would like to unify 1-3 as this is all the same use case: attaching > meta data to the > >> structural model. > >> > >> I propose to unify the API to the same as the RB AST: just > #propertyAt:. Morphic we should > >> not touch... > >> > >> Marcus > >> > > > > > > > -- www.tudorgirba.com "Every thing has its own flow"
