Hello :-) > I think the "replace" and "inject" use cases are different. I don't > mind if "inject" by default uses the patch method name as the new > method name, so long as you get an error if the item is already there > (in all "new" cases). I do mind if "replace" assumes they are the > same.
I'm OK with these semantics also, but struggle to reconcile it with your statement: "I rarely use the same name in my patches, preferring something a bit more explicit so people don't accidentally think they're meant to call it." Why would people only accidentally call replacement methods and not new methods? Anyway, this is only a quibble with your motivation; I'm OK with the conclusions. >> I would be fine with (2) (3) (4) as an improvement on the current way >> of adding a new member. I don't like changing from 'patch' to 'new' >> in (5) and I don't think (6) is terribly useful. > > Agree. Cool. If I get some time I'll make a patch. > The point about ctags is a good one (I don't use ctags myself), Try it, it's great. I use vim with ctags, but I'm sure IDEs do the same kind of thing. -- jean . .. .... //\\\oo///\\ _______________________________________________ Product-Developers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/product-developers
