On 27 January 2017 at 03:45, Igor Stasenko <siguc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 27 January 2017 at 02:28, Ben Coman <b...@openinworld.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 7:35 AM, Igor Stasenko <siguc...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On 27 January 2017 at 01:30, Ben Coman <b...@openinworld.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 6:02 AM, stepharong <stephar...@free.fr>
>> wrote:
>> >> > On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 20:38:49 +0100, Torsten Bergmann <asta...@gmx.de
>> >
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> stepharong wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> can we rename this selector?
>> >> >>> asMethodConst should be at least be renamed to asConstantMethod
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> When you use "as {something}" then "something" depicts the result of
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> conversion message sent to an object.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Like in #asNumber or #asString which shows to what the receiver
>> will be
>> >> >> converted.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes I thought that it was doing that.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> My understanding is that in the case discussed the receiver object
>> is
>> >> >> NOT converted to a constant unchangeable method, so
>> #asConstantMethod
>> >> >> would
>> >> >> not fit as a selector.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Instead it is sent to an object that afterwards is a constant
>> within a
>> >> >> method
>> >> >> (so it will not be evaluated later at runtime again) so IMHO
>> >> >> #asMethodConstant
>> >> >> instead of #asMethodConst would be better.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > I do not understand any of them.
>> >>
>> >> method constant = constant of a method
>>
>>
>> >> constant method = method that does not change
>> >>
>> > are you sure?
>>
>> pretty sure. 'method' is the subject. 'constant' is the adjective that
>> modifies the subject.
>> Its a bit hard to explain that intrinsic feeling of what is right,
>> but maybe.... If the adjective follows the subject its usually
>> separated by little joining words.
>> http://www.grammar-monster.com/glossary/adjective_definition.htm
>>
>> > maybe it is
>> > constant method = method that returns constant?
>>
>> For me this does not compute.
>> But I understand rules differ in other languages and its hard to avoid
>> subtle influences from your primary language.
>>
>
> heh.. you see my pain! right now i have to deal with C++
> and seeing all these
> const Type & foo const..
> and cannot parse it..
> :)
>
> And still, it could just be my personal bias.
>> So if you & Stef find it ambiguous, it may be for others and we should
>> aim to avoid that.
>>
>> Well, we have more general term for objects that do not change over their
> lifetime - immutable. And it is moare precise,
>
(or if not general, but well settled)
> if we're talking in smalltalk context.
> So, why borrowing rather alien term into our ecosystem, because i barely
> heard that anyone
> were using it, and saying something like 'constant object' or something
> like this, when talking smalltalk context.
>
> Because when you open this 'can' of constant method, what does it means
> being a constant?
> Is is that method's properties won't change, or all object(s) it is
> pointing to never change as well?
>
>
>> cheers -ben
>>
>> >
>> > apparently, that's why 'constant' term doesn't fits there, because
>> there's
>> > so many confusion about it. what are the constant in dynamic system,
>> after
>> > all?
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Igor Stasenko.
>
--
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko.
