On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <esteba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> but this is not real immutability, is like a write barrier, that’s why > those method names were not chosen. > As Esteban mentioned, read-only objects are not immutable objects, that's why we didn't use these names. This followed a lot of discussion with many mails (read-only objects are working for a year now, so we had time to discuss) and I don't think we should discuss again this topic. > 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> > wrote: > >> >> Am 25.01.2017 um 12:16 schrieb Esteban Lorenzano <esteba...@gmail.com>: >> >> >> On 25 Jan 2017, at 12:04, Denis Kudriashov <dionisi...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> 2017-01-25 12:03 GMT+01:00 Denis Kudriashov <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/isWri >> table >> which are not a lot better, but well… >> >> Esteban >> >> >> > >
