[vwnc] Another violation of least astonishment rule.

> Filename class>>isBadCharacter:
>
> The filename class is implemented as an abstract class with
> a concrete subclass for each platform. Usually, you issue
> a request to Filename which then delegates to the appropriate
> concrete class, for example, look at Filename class>>components:.
> The first thing it does is;
>
> self == self concreteClass ifFalse: [^self concreteClass components:
> nameString].
>
> But, contrast this with #isBadCharacter:. It does not delegate
> to the approriate concrete class and futhermore it is
> implemented differently in some of the concrete classes.

>
>
> OK... so why were you astonished? What didn't work as you hoped? Just  
> want to get the at the real issue, not the symptoms so I can write the  
> appropriate AR if need be (see the sig).
>
> And a tease aside... the recent intonation of Least Astonishment was  
> listed as a "Principle". Now it's turned into a "Rule". I argue that  
> it's neither, but more of a guideline with nebulous at best metrics on  
> how to determine its application.
>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
> Of Travis Griggs
> Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 5:19 PM
> To: VWNC NC
> Subject: Re: [vwnc] Another violation of least astonishment rule.
>
> On May 27, 2008, at 1:50 PM, Terry Raymond wrote:
>
> > Filename class>>isBadCharacter:
> >
> > The filename class is implemented as an abstract class with
> > a concrete subclass for each platform. Usually, you issue
> > a request to Filename which then delegates to the appropriate
> > concrete class, for example, look at Filename class>>components:.
> > The first thing it does is;
> >
> > self == self concreteClass ifFalse: [^self concreteClass components:
> > nameString].
> >
> > But, contrast this with #isBadCharacter:. It does not delegate
> > to the approriate concrete class and futhermore it is
> > implemented differently in some of the concrete classes.
>
>
> OK... so why were you astonished? What didn't work as you hoped? Just
> want to get the at the real issue, not the symptoms so I can write the
> appropriate AR if need be (see the sig).

> The LAG (Least Astonishment Guideline) is amoral as well, I realized
> two nights ago. How does one rationalize it with "I expected we'd have
> all kinds of problems when we changed X, but it just worked! I was
> astonished!" :)
>
> --
> Travis Griggs
> Objologist
> "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is
> striking at the root" - Henry David Thoreau
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> vwnc mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwnc