<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Ah, then count me as a firm 'yes' vote! I've been in favor of that forever as I agree making things explicitly pvt* removes any possible misinterpretation. The only problem is that many (most?) the senders of those set* methods tend to come from class-side so pvt* visibility would have to extend there as well for this to work. (What I tend to do currently for those cases in my code currently is use a private* prefix.)</div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 1:28 PM Juan Vuletich <<a href="mailto:juan@jvuletich.org">juan@jvuletich.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div bgcolor="#ffffff">
On 6/10/2019 8:15 PM, Phil B wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<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">Why do you think the #privateSetX:setY: looks silly? I
think it's a decent placeholder that I read as saying 'we
really want this to be immutable and are indicating this as
private to reflect that fact until we can actually make it
immutable via the VM' <br></blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Because the comment begs you not to call it. If we just add the pvt
prefix, then it is way more robust. You need to add a new method to
set the ivars, and clearly you are on your own then.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Private categories are good for getting methods out of
the way in the main browser but I'm not wild about them
beyond that. The main issue I have with private categories
is that they are so easy to overlook in the browsers. For
example, if you're in the message finder and you do a search
on 'set', the fact that it shows up as private* makes it
very clear that it's not a method you should be using
generally. If the private prefix were removed, you'd have
to be sure to select an implementor in the right pane (and
hope that they are consistently categorized) and then be
sure to look for the category buried in the method
annotation below (which might be 'private' or 'private -
someSubCategory' etc)... ugh! Or if you see a raw selector
(i.e. #setX:setY:) in code now you have to do the above as
opposed to just looking at the selector name.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>That said, if it really bugs you or others, I will live
without the prefix. But I do find it helpful.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks,</div>
<div>Phil </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I'm suggesting the opposite! To start adding the pvt prefix to
methods we intend to be private (i.e. those already in a 'private*'
category).<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<pre class="gmail-m_7166279947383819097moz-signature" cols="72">--
Juan Vuletich
<a class="gmail-m_7166279947383819097moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.cuis-smalltalk.org" target="_blank">www.cuis-smalltalk.org</a>
<a class="gmail-m_7166279947383819097moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/Cuis-Smalltalk/Cuis-Smalltalk-Dev" target="_blank">https://github.com/Cuis-Smalltalk/Cuis-Smalltalk-Dev</a>
<a class="gmail-m_7166279947383819097moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/jvuletich" target="_blank">https://github.com/jvuletich</a>
<a class="gmail-m_7166279947383819097moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/juan-vuletich-75611b3" target="_blank">https://www.linkedin.com/in/juan-vuletich-75611b3</a>
@JuanVuletich</pre>
</div>
</blockquote></div></div>