but this is not real immutability, is like a write barrier, that’s why those method names were not chosen.
Esteban > On 25 Jan 2017, at 12:37, p...@highoctane.be wrote: > > So, beImmutable and beMutable seem pretty usable and not collision causing > IMHO. > > Phil > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Norbert Hartl <norb...@hartl.name > <mailto:norb...@hartl.name>> wrote: > >> Am 25.01.2017 um 12:16 schrieb Esteban Lorenzano <esteba...@gmail.com >> <mailto:esteba...@gmail.com>>: >> >> >>> On 25 Jan 2017, at 12:04, Denis Kudriashov <dionisi...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:dionisi...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> 2017-01-25 12:03 GMT+01:00 Denis Kudriashov <dionisi...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:dionisi...@gmail.com>>: >>> I think problem that these names could be already in use by frameworks. I >>> am sure #isReadOnly, #beReadOnly is used in many UI's. For example Margitte >>> uses it >>> >>> And probably Glorp >> >> >> yes, but #setIsReadOnlyObject: deserves a place in the podium of ugly names >> :) >> > Absolutely. And we are a really caring community because we care so much > about a method name of a feature that does not work :) > > Norbert >> I thought the names were going to be like beWritable/beNotWritable/isWritable >> which are not a lot better, but well… >> >> Esteban > >
