Fwd: [Pharo-dev] [Glass] printString and asString

> Best
>         -Tobias
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: Martin McClure <[hidden email]>
>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] [Glass] printString and asString
>> Date: 3. Januar 2014 20:55:20 MEZ
>> To: Otto Behrens <[hidden email]>
>> Cc: Discusses Development of Pharo <[hidden email]>
>> Reply-To: Pharo Development List <[hidden email]>
>>
>> On 01/03/2014 12:33 AM, Otto Behrens wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I've run into one of my favorite problems in Smalltalk and decided to
>>> try the list. Please don't shoot me on this one; perhaps you've run
>>> into it yourself. If there are discussions that I should read, please
>>> send me some info.
>>
>> Hi Otto,
>>
>> Well, you asked for comments. This is my personal opinion, which varies
>> quite a bit from most implementations, since it's a bit 'old-school
>> Smalltalk'. But I think the scheme below does fairly neatly distinguish
>> the purposes of the various messages, which have gotten muddied over the
>> years as new developers use the language somewhat differently. But maybe
>> it was never the way I think I remember it being. :-)
>>
>>
>> #printString and #printOn:
>> These should answer a human-readable description of the receiver. The
>> description does not need to include the class name, though it can. All
>> objects should respond to these messages. Generally, #printString should
>> be implemented in terms of #printOn: -- if you're writing to a stream
>> you may not want to pay the cost of creating an extra string.
>> #printString is the equivalent of other languages' toString().
>>
>> #asString
>> There should not be an Object>>asString. This message is *only* for
>> converting string-like things to actual strings. So it would be
>> implemented in String (to return self) and in Symbol, and *maybe* in
>> things like ByteArray (where it does not *describe* the byte array, but
>> answers a string whose characters have the values of the bytes).
>>
>> #storeString
>> Produces legal Smalltalk source code that when executed will produce an
>> equivalent object to the receiver. Needs to be implemented only for
>> objects that can be specified as literals in Smalltalk syntax, but could
>> probably be implemented for a few other simple objects.
>>
>> #displayString and so on.
>> UI frameworks and applications will need to have their own ways of
>> textually representing objects, so will add their own messages such as
>> #displayString. The *only* messages that any application or framework
>> can depend on *all* objects responding to are those that it defines
>> itself, and #printString and #printOn:.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> -Martin
>>
>
>
>
>

> On 3 January 2014 20:08, Tobias Pape <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I think Martin makes a very good point about
>> the various *String messages.
>>  Should we aim for that in >4.5?
>
> Yes :)
>
> frank

>> Best
>>        -Tobias
>>
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>> From: Martin McClure <[hidden email]>
>>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] [Glass] printString and asString
>>> Date: 3. Januar 2014 20:55:20 MEZ
>>> To: Otto Behrens <[hidden email]>
>>> Cc: Discusses Development of Pharo <[hidden email]>
>>> Reply-To: Pharo Development List <[hidden email]>
>>>
>>> On 01/03/2014 12:33 AM, Otto Behrens wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I've run into one of my favorite problems in Smalltalk and decided to
>>>> try the list. Please don't shoot me on this one; perhaps you've run
>>>> into it yourself. If there are discussions that I should read, please
>>>> send me some info.
>>>
>>> Hi Otto,
>>>
>>> Well, you asked for comments. This is my personal opinion, which varies
>>> quite a bit from most implementations, since it's a bit 'old-school
>>> Smalltalk'. But I think the scheme below does fairly neatly distinguish
>>> the purposes of the various messages, which have gotten muddied over the
>>> years as new developers use the language somewhat differently. But maybe
>>> it was never the way I think I remember it being. :-)
>>>
>>>
>>> #printString and #printOn:
>>> These should answer a human-readable description of the receiver. The
>>> description does not need to include the class name, though it can. All
>>> objects should respond to these messages. Generally, #printString should
>>> be implemented in terms of #printOn: -- if you're writing to a stream
>>> you may not want to pay the cost of creating an extra string.
>>> #printString is the equivalent of other languages' toString().
>>>
>>> #asString
>>> There should not be an Object>>asString. This message is *only* for
>>> converting string-like things to actual strings. So it would be
>>> implemented in String (to return self) and in Symbol, and *maybe* in
>>> things like ByteArray (where it does not *describe* the byte array, but
>>> answers a string whose characters have the values of the bytes).
>>>
>>> #storeString
>>> Produces legal Smalltalk source code that when executed will produce an
>>> equivalent object to the receiver. Needs to be implemented only for
>>> objects that can be specified as literals in Smalltalk syntax, but could
>>> probably be implemented for a few other simple objects.
>>>
>>> #displayString and so on.
>>> UI frameworks and applications will need to have their own ways of
>>> textually representing objects, so will add their own messages such as
>>> #displayString. The *only* messages that any application or framework
>>> can depend on *all* objects responding to are those that it defines
>>> itself, and #printString and #printOn:.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> -Martin
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

>
> On 03.01.2014, at 21:31, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On 3 January 2014 20:08, Tobias Pape <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I think Martin makes a very good point about
>>> the various *String messages.
>>>  Should we aim for that in >4.5?
>>
>> Yes :)
>>
>> frank
>
> You mean, deprecate Object>>#asString?
>
> Sounds right, although it is quite handy at times ;)

> - Bert -
>
>
>>> Best
>>>        -Tobias
>>>
>>>
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>
>>>> From: Martin McClure <[hidden email]>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] [Glass] printString and asString
>>>> Date: 3. Januar 2014 20:55:20 MEZ
>>>> To: Otto Behrens <[hidden email]>
>>>> Cc: Discusses Development of Pharo <[hidden email]>
>>>> Reply-To: Pharo Development List <[hidden email]>
>>>>
>>>> On 01/03/2014 12:33 AM, Otto Behrens wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I've run into one of my favorite problems in Smalltalk and decided to
>>>>> try the list. Please don't shoot me on this one; perhaps you've run
>>>>> into it yourself. If there are discussions that I should read, please
>>>>> send me some info.
>>>>
>>>> Hi Otto,
>>>>
>>>> Well, you asked for comments. This is my personal opinion, which varies
>>>> quite a bit from most implementations, since it's a bit 'old-school
>>>> Smalltalk'. But I think the scheme below does fairly neatly distinguish
>>>> the purposes of the various messages, which have gotten muddied over the
>>>> years as new developers use the language somewhat differently. But maybe
>>>> it was never the way I think I remember it being. :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> #printString and #printOn:
>>>> These should answer a human-readable description of the receiver. The
>>>> description does not need to include the class name, though it can. All
>>>> objects should respond to these messages. Generally, #printString should
>>>> be implemented in terms of #printOn: -- if you're writing to a stream
>>>> you may not want to pay the cost of creating an extra string.
>>>> #printString is the equivalent of other languages' toString().
>>>>
>>>> #asString
>>>> There should not be an Object>>asString. This message is *only* for
>>>> converting string-like things to actual strings. So it would be
>>>> implemented in String (to return self) and in Symbol, and *maybe* in
>>>> things like ByteArray (where it does not *describe* the byte array, but
>>>> answers a string whose characters have the values of the bytes).
>>>>
>>>> #storeString
>>>> Produces legal Smalltalk source code that when executed will produce an
>>>> equivalent object to the receiver. Needs to be implemented only for
>>>> objects that can be specified as literals in Smalltalk syntax, but could
>>>> probably be implemented for a few other simple objects.
>>>>
>>>> #displayString and so on.
>>>> UI frameworks and applications will need to have their own ways of
>>>> textually representing objects, so will add their own messages such as
>>>> #displayString. The *only* messages that any application or framework
>>>> can depend on *all* objects responding to are those that it defines
>>>> itself, and #printString and #printOn:.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> -Martin
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>