Protocol names convention

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

Protocol names convention

NorbertHartl
I’m not the biggest fan of method categories/protocols but I try to.
What strikes me is the huge mess in names we have. Everytime I create e.g. an initialize method I’m asking myself which is the proper name to choose

initialize
initializing
initialization
….

Do we have a convention for this?

Right now all names starting with init are

initialization-data
initialize-destroy
initialization-filter
initialize - release
initialize
initialization-union
initialize - event
initializing
initialization
initalize-release
initailize-release
initialization widgets
initalize
initialize-release
initialization-release

Norbert

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Protocol names convention

Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list
Historically, it's always been 'initalize-release'


 
-----------------
Benoît St-Jean
Yahoo! Messenger: bstjean
Twitter: @BenLeChialeux
Pinterest: benoitstjean
Instagram: Chef_Benito
IRC: lamneth
Blogue: endormitoire.wordpress.com
"A standpoint is an intellectual horizon of radius zero".  (A. Einstein)



From: Norbert Hartl <[hidden email]>
To: Pharo Dev <[hidden email]>
Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2018 6:33 AM
Subject: [Pharo-dev] Protocol names convention

I’m not the biggest fan of method categories/protocols but I try to.
What strikes me is the huge mess in names we have. Everytime I create e.g. an initialize method I’m asking myself which is the proper name to choose

initialize
initializing
initialization
….

Do we have a convention for this?

Right now all names starting with init are

initialization-data
initialize-destroy
initialization-filter
initialize - release
initialize
initialization-union
initialize - event
initializing
initialization
initalize-release
initailize-release
initialization widgets
initalize
initialize-release
initialization-release

Norbert


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Protocol names convention

Eliot Miranda-2
In reply to this post by NorbertHartl
Hi Norbert,


> On Jan 13, 2018, at 3:32 AM, Norbert Hartl <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I’m not the biggest fan of method categories/protocols but I try to.
> What strikes me is the huge mess in names we have. Everytime I create e.g. an initialize method I’m asking myself which is the proper name to choose
>
> initialize
> initializing
> initialization
> ….
>
> Do we have a convention for this?
>
> Right now all names starting with init are
>
> initialization-data
> initialize-destroy
> initialization-filter
> initialize - release
> initialize
> initialization-union
> initialize - event
> initializing
> initialization
> initalize-release
> initailize-release
> initialization widgets
> initalize
> initialize-release
> initialization-release

Funny.  Your list (of course) omits one of the best:
  instance initialization

In the original Smalltalk-80 the one used was
  initialize-release
because the system, having a reference counting garbage collector, needed explicit cycle breaking for garbage to be reclaimed and so there were some important release methods in the compiler and the GUI.  But these became obsolete when scavenging was introduced, and so in the parcplace code instance initialization started replacing initialize-release.

I think protocol names should use the passive voice since the active voice suggests specific usage.  So initialization is better than initialize et al.

And it would be nice to have tool support to suggest protocol names to maintain consistency so that the same selector usually appears in the same protocol. Spelling rorres are intivetible and should be fixed when found.

> Norbert
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Protocol names convention

Alistair Grant
Hi Eliot,

On 13 January 2018 at 12:59, Eliot Miranda <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> And it would be nice to have tool support to suggest protocol names to maintain consistency so that the same selector usually appears in the same protocol. Spelling rorres are intivetible and should be fixed when found.

This is partly already available.  If you select the '-- all --'
category, enter and save a method, the browser will guess which
protocol to put the method in.  If the method is implemented by a
superclass it will be put in the same protocol, so #initialize will be
put in to 'initialization' (where it is in ProtoObject).

Cheers,
Alistair

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Protocol names convention

NorbertHartl


> Am 13.01.2018 um 13:37 schrieb Alistair Grant <[hidden email]>:
>
> Hi Eliot,
>
> On 13 January 2018 at 12:59, Eliot Miranda <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> And it would be nice to have tool support to suggest protocol names to maintain consistency so that the same selector usually appears in the same protocol. Spelling rorres are intivetible and should be fixed when found.
>
> This is partly already available.  If you select the '-- all --'
> category, enter and save a method, the browser will guess which
> protocol to put the method in.  If the method is implemented by a
> superclass it will be put in the same protocol, so #initialize will be
> put in to 'initialization' (where it is in ProtoObject).
>
> Cheers,
> Alistair

Sounds great! In which class is the code that does the decision about the right name? I think I find my convention here.+

Norbert

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Protocol names convention

CyrilFerlicot
Le 13/01/2018 à 13:46, Norbert Hartl a écrit :
>
> Sounds great! In which class is the code that does the decision about the right name? I think I find my convention here.+
>

There is MethodClassifier with pragma, prefix and suffix map class side.

> Norbert
>


--
Cyril Ferlicot
https://ferlicot.fr

http://www.synectique.eu
2 rue Jacques Prévert 01,
59650 Villeneuve d'ascq France


signature.asc (836 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Protocol names convention

Stephane Ducasse-3
In reply to this post by NorbertHartl
Norbert I developed a tool to analysis the use of protocol and fix them.
It can show you the distribution and the problems.

You can load it: AutomaticMethodCategorizer.

Now I call my protocol initialization
because initialize-release is dated :)

Stef

On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 12:32 PM, Norbert Hartl <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I’m not the biggest fan of method categories/protocols but I try to.
> What strikes me is the huge mess in names we have. Everytime I create e.g. an initialize method I’m asking myself which is the proper name to choose
>
> initialize
> initializing
> initialization
> ….
>
> Do we have a convention for this?
>
> Right now all names starting with init are
>
> initialization-data
> initialize-destroy
> initialization-filter
> initialize - release
> initialize
> initialization-union
> initialize - event
> initializing
> initialization
> initalize-release
> initailize-release
> initialization widgets
> initalize
> initialize-release
> initialization-release
>
> Norbert
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Protocol names convention

Stephane Ducasse-3
In reply to this post by Alistair Grant
Bingo :)
I fixed the automatic categoriser and refrain myself from fixing all
the deprecancies.

Stef

On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Alistair Grant <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Eliot,
>
> On 13 January 2018 at 12:59, Eliot Miranda <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> And it would be nice to have tool support to suggest protocol names to maintain consistency so that the same selector usually appears in the same protocol. Spelling rorres are intivetible and should be fixed when found.
>
> This is partly already available.  If you select the '-- all --'
> category, enter and save a method, the browser will guess which
> protocol to put the method in.  If the method is implemented by a
> superclass it will be put in the same protocol, so #initialize will be
> put in to 'initialization' (where it is in ProtoObject).
>
> Cheers,
> Alistair
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Protocol names convention

Alistair Grant
In reply to this post by CyrilFerlicot
On 13 January 2018 at 13:50, Cyril Ferlicot D. <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Le 13/01/2018 à 13:46, Norbert Hartl a écrit :
>>
>> Sounds great! In which class is the code that does the decision about the right name? I think I find my convention here.+
>>
>
> There is MethodClassifier with pragma, prefix and suffix map class side.

Which is called by NautilusUI>>compileAMethodFromCategory:withSource:notifying:

Cheers,
Alistair

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Protocol names convention

Stephane Ducasse-3
Yes and In automaticMethodCategorizer (an old project that I improved
for nothing) I did a protocol analyser to help taking some decision
on protocol names.

Stef


On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 2:53 PM, Alistair Grant <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 13 January 2018 at 13:50, Cyril Ferlicot D. <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Le 13/01/2018 à 13:46, Norbert Hartl a écrit :
>>>
>>> Sounds great! In which class is the code that does the decision about the right name? I think I find my convention here.+
>>>
>>
>> There is MethodClassifier with pragma, prefix and suffix map class side.
>
> Which is called by NautilusUI>>compileAMethodFromCategory:withSource:notifying:
>
> Cheers,
> Alistair
>