Smalltalk › Frameworks & Tools › Monticello, Metacello ... › Metacello

Minimal base image Metacello presence for GemStone, Pharo, and Squeak

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

24 messages Options

vonbecmann

Re: Minimal base image Metacello presence for GemStone, Pharo, and Squeak

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Sean P. DeNigris <[hidden email]> wrote:

vonbecmann wrote

>
> ConfigurationOf and BaselineOf because
> they are short.
>

+1

Or why not MetacelloConfiguration and MetacelloBaseline?

--
View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Minimal-base-image-Metacello-presence-for-GemStone-Pharo-and-Squeak-tp4334269p4632543.html

Sent from the Metacello mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

--
Bernardo E.C.

Dale Henrichs

Re: Minimal base image Metacello presence for GemStone, Pharo, and Squeak

In reply to this post by Sean P. DeNigris

I have to say that I favor short at the moment and in my writing I do tend to refer to configurations and baselines as ConfigurationOf and BaselineOf ...

Oh wait ...my opinion shouldn't count:)

Dale

----- Original Message -----
| From: "Sean P. DeNigris" <[hidden email]>
| To: [hidden email]
| Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 12:16:59 PM
| Subject: [Metacello] Re: Minimal base image Metacello presence for GemStone, Pharo, and Squeak
|
|
| vonbecmann wrote
| >
| > ConfigurationOf and BaselineOf because
| > they are short.
| >
| +1
|
| Or why not MetacelloConfiguration and MetacelloBaseline?
|
| --
| View this message in context:
| http://forum.world.st/Minimal-base-image-Metacello-presence-for-GemStone-Pharo-and-Squeak-tp4334269p4632543.html
| Sent from the Metacello mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
|

Frank Shearar-3

Re: Minimal base image Metacello presence for GemStone, Pharo, and Squeak

On 30 May 2012 20:30, Dale Henrichs <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I have to say that I favor short at the moment and in my writing I do tend to refer to configurations and baselines as ConfigurationOf and BaselineOf ...
>
> Oh wait ...my opinion shouldn't count:)

Well, everyone seems to be agreeing with you (here's my +1 for
ConfigurationOf, BaselineOf), so it can't be all bad!

frank

Ben Coman-2

Re: Minimal base image Metacello presence for GemStone, Pharo, and Squeak

Perhaps if going from scratch MetacelloConfiguration might be a good line, but since there is already the pattern of lots of ConfigurationOfXXX, then I like ConfigurationOf as the superclass.

Frank Shearar wrote:

On 30 May 2012 20:30, Dale Henrichs [hidden email] wrote:

I have to say that I favor short at the moment and in my writing I do tend to refer to configurations and baselines as ConfigurationOf and BaselineOf ...

Oh wait ...my opinion shouldn't count:)


Well, everyone seems to be agreeing with you (here's my +1 for
ConfigurationOf, BaselineOf), so it can't be all bad!

frank

Dale

----- Original Message -----
| From: "Sean P. DeNigris" [hidden email]
| To: [hidden email]
| Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 12:16:59 PM
| Subject: [Metacello] Re: Minimal base image Metacello presence for GemStone, Pharo, and Squeak
|
|
| vonbecmann wrote
| >
| > ConfigurationOf and BaselineOf because
| > they are short.
| >
| +1
|
| Or why not MetacelloConfiguration and MetacelloBaseline?
|
| --
| View this message in context:
| http://forum.world.st/Minimal-base-image-Metacello-presence-for-GemStone-Pharo-and-Squeak-tp4334269p4632543.html
| Sent from the Metacello mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
|