Issue 7304 in pharo: Object>>#name should best be removed

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
9 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Issue 7304 in pharo: Object>>#name should best be removed

pharo
Status: Accepted
Owner: ----
Labels: Milestone-2.0 Type-Feature

New issue 7304 by [hidden email]: Object>>#name should best be  
removed
http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=7304

Many people have hit the fact that Object implements #name, which then  
seems to conflict with some other class where one would really like to use  
name as an instance variable and thus accessor.

Turns out that it seems that Object>>#name is actually not used (anymore).

I just put a halt in it and tried a couple of tools and everything seems to  
work just fine.

The comment talks about Inspector use, but there is  
#defaultLabelForInspector for that.

It is a small thing, but it confuses everybody for no good reason,

See the following thread:

   
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/pipermail/pharo-project/2013-January/073255.html

All positive, no negative reactions.


_______________________________________________
Pharo-bugtracker mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-bugtracker
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Issue 7304 in pharo: Object>>#name should best be removed

pharo

Comment #1 on issue 7304 by [hidden email]: Object>>#name should  
best be removed
http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=7304

To simple to make a slice.

This will probably do:

   Object removeSelector: #name



_______________________________________________
Pharo-bugtracker mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-bugtracker
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Issue 7304 in pharo: Object>>#name should best be removed

pharo
Updates:
        Status: FixReviewNeeded

Comment #2 on issue 7304 by [hidden email]: Object>>#name should  
best be removed
http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=7304

(No comment was entered for this change.)


_______________________________________________
Pharo-bugtracker mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-bugtracker
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Issue 7304 in pharo: Object>>#name should best be removed

pharo

Comment #3 on issue 7304 by [hidden email]: Object>>#name should  
best be removed
http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=7304

Well, I actually removed it, and it turns out

   AbstractNautilusUI>>#sortClassesInCachedHierarchy:b:

needs it while sorting a heterogeneous collection containing classes and a  
String containing a single space.
I am not sure but this strikes me as pretty weird...


_______________________________________________
Pharo-bugtracker mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-bugtracker
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Issue 7304 in pharo: Object>>#name should best be removed

pharo
Updates:
        Status: WorkNeeded

Comment #4 on issue 7304 by [hidden email]: Object>>#name should  
best be removed
http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=7304

(No comment was entered for this change.)


_______________________________________________
Pharo-bugtracker mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-bugtracker
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Issue 7304 in pharo: Object>>#name should best be removed

pharo
Updates:
        Cc: [hidden email] [hidden email]
        Labels: -Milestone-2.0 Milestone-3.0

Comment #5 on issue 7304 by [hidden email]: Object>>#name should best  
be removed
http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=7304

sorry but... why this is marked to enter in 2.0?
I agree with its removal, but it should be marked 3.0, not for now...


_______________________________________________
Pharo-bugtracker mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-bugtracker
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Issue 7304 in pharo: Object>>#name should best be removed

pharo

Comment #6 on issue 7304 by [hidden email]: Object>>#name should  
best be removed
http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=7304

Although there are thousands of senders and many implementors of #name,  
Object>>#name is not used (apart from Nautilus but that is probably easy to  
fix) - Class #name is - and confuses people a lot.

So it is (most probably) dead code.

There is no reason to do this softly with deprecation et al.

If there is a good reason not to do it, then we could wait of course.



_______________________________________________
Pharo-bugtracker mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-bugtracker
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Issue 7304 in pharo: Object>>#name should best be removed

pharo

Comment #7 on issue 7304 by [hidden email]: Object>>#name should  
best be removed
http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=7304

Use printString instead, same effect :)

Slice is in the inbox


_______________________________________________
Pharo-bugtracker mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-bugtracker
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Issue 7304 in pharo: Object>>#name should best be removed

pharo

Comment #8 on issue 7304 by [hidden email]: Object>>#name should  
best be removed
http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=7304

OK, thanks.

I will try removing Object>>#name after loading the slice and see how far I  
get.


_______________________________________________
Pharo-bugtracker mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-bugtracker