[Cuis] Fwd: Re: DIRECT version number

[Phil (list)]

On Mon, 2015-08-03 at 15:49 -0300, Juan Vuletich wrote:
> Hi Doug,
> 
> On 8/2/2015 4:04 AM, Douglas Brebner wrote:
> > On 19/07/2015 22:38, Phil (list) wrote:
> >> Ready to go... we just need to agree on how to do it (pragma/method 
> >> call/method category/method name?) Also, this is most definitely 
> >> related to the 'Canonical test cases?' thread from a few months ago 
> >> as these types of test cases / docs are part of the backfill I was 
> >> referring to.
> >
> > I vaguely recall that many years ago there was a project called 
> > SmallInterfaces that let you define public interfaces to objects. (Or 
> > something like that). Would that be a good way to document the 
> > public/private api using code?
> >
> > (sorry for being so vague but I've been awake for 24+ hours now)
> 
> Thanks for the pointer. I took a look at it. It is quite like Java 
> interfaces. The tools are interesting. But I see several downsides:
> 
> - Each interface is a class. Each method in the protocol is an actual 
> method. If we use this to document all public protocols in Cuis, it 
> would mean a lot of new classes and methods.
> - The source code of (for example) OrderedCollection>>at: would not 
> include the information of it belonging to interface "Indexable". 
> Without additional support from tools users can't tell whether a message 
> is public protocol or not. And the base image / package maintainer can't 
> easily see he's about to change a public api.
> 
> I think a method pragma, that includes the name of the protocol avoids 
> these issues and is a better choice.
> 

I agree.  Let's keep it as simple as possible and see how far that gets
us.

> Cheers,
> Juan Vuletich
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Cuis mailing list
> Cuis at jvuletich.org
> http://jvuletich.org/mailman/listinfo/cuis_jvuletich.org