<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
    On 6/11/2019 2:18 AM, Luciano Notarfrancesco via Cuis-dev wrote:
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CAL5GDyoW_uUtrVRZf-wEJoTQW_-AyQHsPbrBYOL=Ybgr9AoAXQ@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">
      <div dir="ltr">
        <div dir="ltr">On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 10:24 PM Juan Vuletich
          via Cuis-dev <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
            href="mailto:cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st">cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st</a>>
          wrote:<br>
        </div>
        <div class="gmail_quote">
          <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px
            0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
            padding-left: 1ex;">BTW, we'd really make methods such as
            #setCollection:, <br>
            #setNumerator:denominator:, actually all methods set*, all
            methods <br>
            private* and all methods in a 'private*' category actually
            private... <br>
            For example the comment at #privateSetX:setY: looks so
            silly.<br>
            <br>
            Opinions?<br>
            <br>
          </blockquote>
        </div>
        <div class="gmail_quote"><br>
        </div>
        <div class="gmail_quote">How would you do that? Changing
          isPvtSelector to see if the methods implementing it are only
          present in 'private' categories? Extending it to include
          'private' prefix sounds reasonable, but I'm not sure about
          'set' prefix, because some objects are not intended to be
          immutable and it might make sense to have public selectors
          like #setName: for example (although I would probably call it
          #name: instead).<br>
        </div>
        <div class="gmail_quote"><br>
        </div>
        <div class="gmail_quote">I know some of my code would break, for
          example sometimes I allow objects that play a "factory" role
          to call setters of other objects (this might be a bad thing,
          still not decided). It would be interesting to see how many
          methods in the current image would stop compiling if we do
          this, tho... even if we don't make this change, finding out
          where this (arguably black) pattern is used might be
          interesting...<br>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    No, I just suggest we start adding the pvt prefix to methods we want
    to be private. Just that.<br>
    <br>
    <pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">-- 
Juan Vuletich
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.cuis-smalltalk.org">www.cuis-smalltalk.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/Cuis-Smalltalk/Cuis-Smalltalk-Dev">https://github.com/Cuis-Smalltalk/Cuis-Smalltalk-Dev</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/jvuletich">https://github.com/jvuletich</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/juan-vuletich-75611b3">https://www.linkedin.com/in/juan-vuletich-75611b3</a>
@JuanVuletich</pre>
  </body>
</html>