On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 4:26 AM, commits@source.squeak.org wrote:
Error subclass: #NotImplementedError
NotImplementedError subclass: #NotYetImplemented
NotImplementedError subclass: #SubclassResponsibilityError
The usual naming convention for exceptions is to omit the the "Error" part of the name (e.g., MessageNotUnderstood). So these new exceptions ought to be:
NotImplemented NotYetImplemented SubclassResponsibility
Otherwise, looks great!
Colin
On 30 January 2013 18:33, Colin Putney colin@wiresong.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 4:26 AM, commits@source.squeak.org wrote:
Error subclass: #NotImplementedError
NotImplementedError subclass: #NotYetImplemented
NotImplementedError subclass: #SubclassResponsibilityError
The usual naming convention for exceptions is to omit the the "Error" part of the name (e.g., MessageNotUnderstood). So these new exceptions ought to be:
NotImplemented NotYetImplemented SubclassResponsibility
Otherwise, looks great!
Hm, OK. I named them that way thinking that was the convention. But sure, I'd prefer to nix the Error prefix. Ah, I think I may have got this idea from the Notification hierarchy. Maybe?
frank
Colin
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Frank Shearar frank.shearar@gmail.comwrote:
Hm, OK. I named them that way thinking that was the convention. But sure, I'd prefer to nix the Error prefix. Ah, I think I may have got this idea from the Notification hierarchy. Maybe?
Yeah, it goes against our instinct to name things with the noun, and other languages (eg. Java) *do* include the suffix. But I think it does produce a better effect. Notifications are a bit weird, because you often get names that reflect the use case of the exception–things like "Request."
Colin
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org