why do we have subclassHierarchy that in fact return subclasses?
Locked
why do we have subclassHierarchy that in fact return subclasses?
 
|
subclassHierarchy
| subclasses | subclasses := OrderedCollection new. self allSubclassesDo: [:each | subclasses add: each]. ^ subclasses to me it looks like too much thinking and this kind of API sucks. I can understand subclassHierarchyDepth because it is about hierarchy but no subclasses. Stef _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
Re: why do we have subclassHierarchy that in fact return subclasses?
|
|
This API is there since about a decade. In Smalltalk the selector would have been allSubclasses. However, in Moose, we typically use all for contained elements. This is why it's not called allSubclasses. Another possibility would be to call it deepSubclasses. But, of course, everything is subject to change. Cheers, Doru On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote: subclassHierarchy "Every thing has its own flow"
_______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
Re: why do we have subclassHierarchy that in fact return subclasses?
|
|
well. I do not think that this is that long.
to me allSubclasses is simple, intention revealing and it works well. I started to create my own extensions because I do not have the brain cells to remember that sublcassHierarhcy which refers to a "bag" returns the bag elements. Stef
_______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
In reply to this post by Tudor Girba-2
I do not understand why it is not called #allSubclasses Returning a group of famixclass seems to be what one would expect no? Alexandre
_______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
Re: why do we have subclassHierarchy that in fact return subclasses?
|
|
In reply to this post by Stéphane Ducasse
I said that in Moose we use all* for things like allClasses in a model, and this is why at the time we did it we chose to call it hierarchy. It might not be the best choice, but this is the background.
Doru On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 10:48 PM, Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:
"Every thing has its own flow"
_______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
Re: why do we have subclassHierarchy that in fact return subclasses?
|
|
So I will add allSubclasses We can keep
Is there another case like that one?
_______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
Re: why do we have subclassHierarchy that in fact return subclasses?
|
|
In reply to this post by abergel
> I do not understand why it is not called #allSubclasses > Returning a group of famixclass seems to be what one would expect no? indeed we could also add a group. Is there is a convention to create groups or not? _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
Re: why do we have subclassHierarchy that in fact return subclasses?
|
|
Hi, Yes, there is. Groups are expensive, so for longer computations we want to work with raw collections. Groups are more useful when we get in the UI. You can always pass asMooseGroup to any object when you script. For annotated methods (properties), they should return groups. So, for groups we have methods like:
FAMIXType>>methodsGroup <navigation: 'Methods'> ^MooseGroup
withAll: self methods withDescription: 'Methods from ' , self mooseName Doru On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 8:21 PM, Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:
"Every thing has its own flow"
_______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
In reply to this post by Stéphane Ducasse
#withAllSubclasses is also very important.
Alexandre -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. On Dec 8, 2013, at 4:20 PM, Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote: > > >> I said that in Moose we use all* for things like allClasses in a model, and this is why at the time we did it we chose to call it hierarchy. > > OK I try to understand. all* does not goes against allSubclasses > >> It might not be the best choice, but this is the background. >> >> Please do not create extensions. Moose is not readonly :). Modify and deprecate existing ones. > > So I will add allSubclasses > We can keep >>> subclassHierarchy > > Is there another case like that one? > > Stef > >> >> Doru >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 10:48 PM, Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> >>> This API is there since about a decade. >> >> well. I do not think that this is that long. >> >>> In Smalltalk the selector would have been allSubclasses. However, in Moose, we typically use all for contained elements. >> >> what do you mean? >> >>> This is why it's not called allSubclasses. Another possibility would be to call it deepSubclasses. But, of course, everything is subject to change. >> >> I do not understand why you choose something that goes against our cultural reference. >> >> to me allSubclasses is simple, intention revealing and it works well. >> I started to create my own extensions because I do not have the brain cells to remember that sublcassHierarhcy which refers to a "bag" returns >> the bag elements. >> >> Stef >> >> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Doru >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> subclassHierarchy >>> | subclasses | >>> subclasses := OrderedCollection new. >>> self allSubclassesDo: [:each | subclasses add: each]. >>> ^ subclasses >>> >>> >>> to me it looks like too much thinking and this kind of API sucks. >>> >>> I can understand >>> >>> subclassHierarchyDepth >>> because it is about hierarchy but no subclasses. >>> >>> Stef >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Moose-dev mailing list >>> [hidden email] >>> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> www.tudorgirba.com >>> >>> "Every thing has its own flow" >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Moose-dev mailing list >>> [hidden email] >>> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Moose-dev mailing list >> [hidden email] >> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev >> >> >> >> >> -- >> www.tudorgirba.com >> >> "Every thing has its own flow" >> _______________________________________________ >> Moose-dev mailing list >> [hidden email] >> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev > > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > [hidden email] > https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
«
Return to Moose
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |