names for boolean keyword arguments

Is there a convention for naming keywork arguments that should have a  
boolean value?

When it's not a boolean, it seems the convention is

value: aValue

That doesn't seem right for booleans though. I'd end up with arguments  
like

expensive: anExpensive

---
Mark Volkmann




_______________________________________________
Beginners mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners

On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 17:02 -0500, Mark Volkmann wrote: There is no strict rule to it but I think here the majority
follows some "hint what to expect" rule. That means you name
the argument after the class of the argument.

expensive: anExpensive

you would write if the argument is an object with class Expensive.
If it is a boolean you can write

expensive: aBoolean

Norbert



_______________________________________________
Beginners mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners

>>>>> "Norbert" == Norbert Hartl <[hidden email]> writes:

Norbert> There is no strict rule to it but I think here the majority
Norbert> follows some "hint what to expect" rule. That means you name
Norbert> the argument after the class of the argument.

Norbert> expensive: anExpensive

If I recall, according to Smalltalk Best Practice Patterns (the seminal
patterns book for Smalltalk), you want the attribute to be of the form
"isProperty":

  isExpensive := true.

which means that "expensive:" shouldn't be a setter.  In fact, said book
states that you should have "be" methods:

  anObject beExpensive
  anObject beCheap

which would likely set isExpensive to true and false respectively, perhaps,
or even 2 states out of a 3-state variable.  Encapsulation!  Because
then you also have tests:

  anObject isExpensive ifTrue: [ ... ]

or even (if you use it a lot):

  anObject ifExpensive: [ ... ]

I've often argued that automatic creation of getters and setters is wrong.
This is clearly an example of where automatic getters and setters lead you to
bizarre code.

--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<[hidden email]> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See http://methodsandmessages.vox.com/ for Smalltalk and Seaside discussion
_______________________________________________
Beginners mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners

On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 18:05 -0700, Randal L. Schwartz wrote: Yes and even the grammar was bad :) I was just answering his question.
Did you read at least the subject?

Norbert

_______________________________________________
Beginners mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners