I am really wonder guys. I thought you are not big funs of Object protocol. Current pinning messages are a new set of very generic messages in the Object.
About Norbert idea. - bePinnedObject is not bad convention. But I would prefer the memory suffix because it reflects the low level behaviour. 2017-09-11 14:16 GMT+02:00 Esteban Lorenzano <[email protected]>: > yes, me :) > > I do not see a reason to change them, tbh. > for me they are comprensible as they are now and it does not adds more > information pinInMemory or pinMemory. > > Esteban > > > On 11 Sep 2017, at 11:56, Denis Kudriashov <[email protected]> wrote: > > Anybody else? > > 2017-08-31 10:29 GMT+02:00 Pavel Krivanek <[email protected]>: > >> >> >> 2017-08-31 10:24 GMT+02:00 Denis Kudriashov <[email protected]>: >> >>> Hi. >>> >>> We now have very generic message names: >>> - pin >>> - unpin >>> - setPinned: >>> - isPinned >>> >>> Problem that they collide with possible domain related names. >>> For example I implemented pinning of tabs in Calypso and I found that I >>> overrides #pin and #isPinned messages. Then I fix it with different names. >>> Probably menus also uses pin word but without overrides >>> >>> What you think about renaming pinning messages? Something like: >>> - pinMemory >>> >> >> I would use pinInMemory >> >> -- Pavel >> >> >>> - unpinMemory >>> - isMemoryPinned >>> - setPinnedMemory: >>> - pinMemoryDuring: (if we will introduce it) >>> >>> I think it is easy to do now because not much code uses pinning >>> >> >> > >
