Hi Denis, On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Denis Kudriashov <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Eliot. > > I know and I only talk about new messages. I am not trying to rethink full > meta model of Smalltalk. > By the way #class is very common message and it is handy to use short > name. But pinning messages will be used rarely in very specific > applications. So no much sense to preserve them in short version. > Agreed. So we have to decide whether to go with pinInMemory or pinObject, pinObject being suggested by Norbert because it matched isReadOnlyObject. Personally I like pinInMemory. Norbert, do you feel strongly about pinObject et al? > > 2017-09-12 18:05 GMT+02:00 Eliot Miranda <[email protected]>: > >> Hi Denis, >> >> >> On Sep 12, 2017, at 2:39 AM, Denis Kudriashov <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> 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. >> >> >> Yes, and that's because this is a fundamental property of all >> non-immediate objects. Do you object to the #class message? Should it be >> #classObject because it might conflict with #class used in an educational >> or socioeconomic model? All objects other than immediates can move. >> Pinning stops that movement. It applies generally. So the protocol >> belongs in 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 >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > -- _,,,^..^,,,_ best, Eliot
