There is actually no simple way to simply rename a method. We should maybe add one which keep track of the versions :)
Historically (even if it sounds wrong today) you create a new method, and delete the old one (and indeed this is disturbing for new comers ^^) I really think that both usage are valid even if I think that most of the time, you want to do a refactoring while renaming :) Let's release Pharo 2.0, and then we will have fun experimenting this ^^ Ben On Feb 20, 2013, at 11:45 AM, p...@highoctane.be wrote: > Yes, usability matters. Especially to get traction with new people. > > Alt-R,Alt-N is perfectly usable, no matter how deep it is in the > refactoring menu. > > Refactoring fine for dealing with a codebase. Not so when dealing with > typos or removing methods from a path while at the same time not > really removing them (aka rename doThis to doThis_ temporarily for > example). > > Phil > > 2013/2/20 Esteban Lorenzano <esteba...@gmail.com>: >> yes, but the debate is interesting, because is about usability... and we >> certainly need to improve a lot in that area. >> I think that currently, when people performs an operation like rename, they >> are waiting for a refactor, not for the clean rename (if you look at >> eclipse, for instance, that's what you have when you rename a method or a >> class)... what has become quite uncommon is to perform the "non-refactored >> operation". >> Of course we could have a place for that operation too, but since the >> "refactored one" is what people expects/uses, that has to be the one that >> will be easier to fetch. >> >> Esteban >> >> On Feb 20, 2013, at 11:25 AM, "p...@highoctane.be" <p...@highoctane.be> >> wrote: >> >>> Yes, but the rename is *not* in the refactoring menu. It is *below* >>> the refactoring menu. >>> So, it is an unexpected refactoring in disguise... >>> >>> There was a simple rename in 1.4 I think. Maybe can we get that one >>> back (in 3.0 of course...) >>> >>> Phil >>> >>> 2013/2/20 Fernando Olivero <fernando.oliv...@usi.ch>: >>>> Hi, i had the same misconception once, but i recall Lukas pointed out >>>> that the refactoring engine is built on the original refactoring's >>>> from Fowler's book, and implemented in Smalltalk by Roberts and >>>> Johnson [1]. >>>> >>>> So the semantics of the refactoring are preserved in the implementation. >>>> >>>> If you just want a method rename, not a method refactoring rename, >>>> maybe is best have an option for that in the menu [2]. >>>> >>>> >>>> Fernando >>>> >>>> [1] http://st-www.cs.illinois.edu/users/droberts/tapos.pdf >>>> [2] or use a better widget for editing methods, than a simple code >>>> editor within the pane of the browser, as in Gaucho..which i'm working >>>> on. >>>> >>>> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Esteban Lorenzano <esteba...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> and you are right, scoped browsing is a very powerful feature that can be >>>>> tricky to newcomers... but at least now with nautilus it is there, as >>>>> first option (in OB it was there, but more or less hidden in a submenu)... >>>>> It is a small step, but is something... and well... we can improve in >>>>> next releases, one step at a time :) >>>>> >>>>> Esteban >>>>> >>>>> On Feb 20, 2013, at 10:52 AM, "p...@highoctane.be" <p...@highoctane.be> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Yes, thanks, I figured that out. A newcomer wouldn't... and renaming >>>>>> is pretty common. >>>>>> >>>>>> What will happen is that people will remove the method and recreate a >>>>>> new one. >>>>>> Version history will then go away. >>>>>> >>>>>> Or is the system smart enough to find out about these things? >>>>>> >>>>>> Phil >>>>>> >>>>>> 2013/2/20 Esteban Lorenzano <esteba...@gmail.com>: >>>>>>> hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> yes, you are right.. but that is a "nice to have", not a bug... so it >>>>>>> will wait to 3.0 :) >>>>>>> In the mean time, you can do a scoped rename: you select the packages >>>>>>> you want, then right click and "browse scoped", then you apply you >>>>>>> rename, and it will apply the refactor in the scoped selection, not all >>>>>>> the image. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> cheers, >>>>>>> Esteban >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Feb 20, 2013, at 10:21 AM, "p...@highoctane.be" <p...@highoctane.be> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Well, look at the screenshot then tell me that this is what I want. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is definitively *not* what I want. Especially unchecking that >>>>>>>> endless list of methods. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Adding a "Uncheck all" "Check all" button to the Changes Browser list >>>>>>>> would help... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>> Phil >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2013/2/20 Camillo Bruni <camillobr...@gmail.com>: >>>>>>>>> there is 1 certain bug, that is that you cannot see the changes of >>>>>>>>> the refactoring: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=7547 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> the rest I would consider a bug as well. But in the terms of >>>>>>>>> refactoring it might >>>>>>>>> be "valid". It does preserve behavior by renaming also all >>>>>>>>> implementors. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> How about this reasoning: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rename method >>>>>>>>> => rename all senders (since you refactor) >>>>>>>>> => you have to rename all implementors as well since you renamed all >>>>>>>>> send sites >>>>>>>>> otherwise you'll run for sure into a DNU >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think I just convinced myself :D >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 2013-02-20, at 09:26, "p...@highoctane.be" <p...@highoctane.be> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> I was doing a Refactoring>rename of the initialize method in Nautilus >>>>>>>>>> for the ClassMethodBrowser and then the changes browser proposed me >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> change all classes with initialize. WTF? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Phil >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <PharoScreenshot.3.png> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >
