Dear list,
I've noticed that when I'm using the generate accessors refactoring, I'm
always adapting the generated code for the mutator:
number: anObject
number := anObject
to:
number: aNumber
number := aNumber
So I've adapted the refactoring code a bit so that it automatically
generates
i would like that too
On Sep 12, 2010 7:27 PM, "Bart Gauquie" wrote:
Dear list,
I've noticed that when I'm using the generate accessors refactoring, I'm
always adapting the generated code for the mutator:
number: anObject
number := anObject
to:
number: aNumber
number := aNumber
So I'
How you derive the type?
>From the method name? I think only very few accessors/inst-vars are
named after the type.
Also note that you can edit the type directly in the changes browser
before you install it, that's what I typically do.
Lukas
2010/9/13 Mariano Martinez Peck :
> i would like that
El lun, 13-09-2010 a las 14:02 +0200, Lukas Renggli escribió:
> How you derive the type?
I think it only uses the name of the inst var to name the parameter var
in the accessor.
>
> >From the method name? I think only very few accessors/inst-vars are
> named after the type.
>
> Also note that y
don't use the type, i only uses the name of the parameter var to derive the
name of parameter
2010/9/13 Miguel Enrique Cobá Martínez
> El lun, 13-09-2010 a las 14:02 +0200, Lukas Renggli escribió:
> > How you derive the type?
>
> I think it only uses the name of the inst var to name the paramete
In my image only 9% of the accessors follow this pattern.
Lukas
2010/9/13 Bart Gauquie :
> don't use the type, i only uses the name of the parameter var to derive the
> name of parameter
>
> 2010/9/13 Miguel Enrique Cobá Martínez
>>
>> El lun, 13-09-2010 a las 14:02 +0200, Lukas Renggli escribió
which pattern? I thought we were discussing about the default... :S
I think that anObject is an ugly default, yes. I prefere to have
>>niceSarasa: aNiceSarasa
niceSarasa := aNiceSarasa
than
>>niceSarasa: anObject
niceSarasa := anObject
Obviously, these are useful only when we autogenerate th
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Lukas Renggli wrote:
> In my image only 9% of the accessors follow this pattern.
>
And how many remains with anObject ??? I think it should much less than 9%
I really hate leaving this with anObject since it makes me undertand that it
will be any kind of object
