+1 on the removal of Object>>#name. On May 26, 2014, at 1:19 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[email protected]> wrote:
> Object>>#name should be removed, it is possible, I tried it once. > Most senders of #name are asking for the name of a class. > > On 26 May 2014, at 18:15, Stephan Eggermont <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Do I understand correctly that name is to be understood as inspectorName >> and so should never be implemented as subclass responsibility? >> >> Stephan >> > > > ---> Save our in-boxes! http://emailcharter.org <--- Johan Fabry - http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry PLEIAD lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile
