[Cuis-dev] Why can't you send to super on private (pvt*) methods?

[Juan Vuletich]

Just pushed a change to use a different prefix 'initializePvt' for 
initialization of immutable objects. Please, help us find a better one. 
Using 'pvtInitialize' as prefix is not only bad because it clashed with 
Phil's code, but because 'pvt' is a prefix of it, making it confusing 
and error prone.

Thanks,

On 6/12/2019 11:07 PM, Phil B wrote:
> Heh... well ya broke my code!  I have a class side send to self 
> pvtInitialize* which now results in 'Private instance initialization 
> messages may only be sent to ''self new'' or "self basicNew" (by class 
> instance creation methods)'  (i.e. self pvt* is valid instance *or* 
> class side)
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 9:14 PM Juan Vuletich <juan at jvuletich.org 
> <mailto:juan at jvuletich.org>> wrote:
>
>     The last bunch of updates done today enable sending `super
>     pvtMessage`. I also added a new, related way for initializers.
>     Now, an instance creation method can do 'self new
>     pvtInitializeStuff' or 'self basicNew pvtInitializeStuff', but no
>     one else can call #pvtInitializeStuff. As a first example, I
>     finally was able to make Point almost immutable. Please check it.
>
>     Cheers,
>
>     -- 
>     Juan Vuletich
>     www.cuis-smalltalk.org  <http://www.cuis-smalltalk.org>
>     https://github.com/Cuis-Smalltalk/Cuis-Smalltalk-Dev
>     https://github.com/jvuletich
>     https://www.linkedin.com/in/juan-vuletich-75611b3
>     @JuanVuletich
>
>
>     On 6/11/2019 2:43 PM, Phil B wrote:
>>     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.)
>>
>>     On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 1:28 PM Juan Vuletich <juan at jvuletich.org
>>     <mailto:juan at jvuletich.org>> wrote:
>>
>>         On 6/10/2019 8:15 PM, Phil B wrote:
>>>
>>>             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'
>>>
>>
>>         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.
>>
>>>
>>>         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.
>>>
>>>         That said, if it really bugs you or others, I will live
>>>         without the prefix.  But I do find it helpful.
>>>
>>>         Thanks,
>>>         Phil
>>
>>         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).
>>
>>         Cheers,
>>
>>         -- 
>>         Juan Vuletich
>>         www.cuis-smalltalk.org  <http://www.cuis-smalltalk.org>
>>         https://github.com/Cuis-Smalltalk/Cuis-Smalltalk-Dev
>>         https://github.com/jvuletich
>>         https://www.linkedin.com/in/juan-vuletich-75611b3
>>         @JuanVuletich
>>
>


-- 
Juan Vuletich
www.cuis-smalltalk.org
https://github.com/Cuis-Smalltalk/Cuis-Smalltalk-Dev
https://github.com/jvuletich
https://www.linkedin.com/in/juan-vuletich-75611b3
@JuanVuletich

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cuis.st/mailman/archives/cuis-dev/attachments/20190613/5d125e2b/attachment.htm>