Tentative change: feedback requested

[Brian Rice]

On Oct 12, 2004, at 2:19 PM, Peter van Rooijen wrote:

> Brian Rice wrote:
>> I've altered the "VM generate" and "VM buildImage" to take a &named: 
>> keyword argument instead of &name: per Ken Causey's request 
>> (basically so that it reads more naturally). Are there any votes 
>> against this?
>
> Hi!
>
> I don't have a vote :-), but I would note that the pattern of using 
> named: to specify that you want something with that name only works 
> for certain attributes/properties. A lot of attribute names just don't 
> lend themselves to be postfixed with -ed (not even 'name' itself ;-)).
>
> This leads to cognitive overhead where you have to remember when you 
> can use the -ed pattern and when you have to say withId: or withOwner: 
> et cetera.
>
> Therefore I would suggest using a with<AttributeName>: pattern.
>
> When you are asking for either an existing one or a newly created one, 
> this works quite well. When you definitely want a new one, you can use 
> newWithId:. When you definitely want an existing one, one might want 
> existingWithId: or even oldWithId: (that sounds a but strange but it 
> is short and idiomatic with newWithId:).

Well, the idea of the optionals idiom is that the & can be read as 
"with" or "and also", so it should not be necessary.

> I know very little about what the usage context of the &named: thing 
> is, so my comments may be completely off the mark. Then, since Slate 
> is a clean slate thing and I have the impression there is a strong 
> desire to be systematic and a willingness (even desire) to break with 
> tradition where it fits, perhaps this could still be slightly useful.
>
> Go Slate!
>
> Peter

--
Brian T. Rice
LOGOS Research and Development
http://tunes.org/~water/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 1805 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /archives/slate/attachments/20041017/82bb331d/attachment.bin