29 Jul
2012
29 Jul
'12
2:58 p.m.
For me atXXScope is not really clear because I do not
read it as asClass or asPackages
To me scope represents intuitively the scope of a query and this is difficult/strange to
see it as a result but why not.
I think that resultsAsPackages and resultsAsMethods are clearer.
maybe scopeToClasses, scopeToPackages?
At least there is a verb in the message, which is good (and important for me).
aMethod
queryOutgoingReferences atPackageScope
I have a method, get all the references, then I want to get what? all the packages?
aMethod
queryOutgoingReferences atMethodScope
I have a method, get all the references, then
I get what? all the methods that contain the references?
nicolas it would be great to paste that mail in a little document somewhere :)
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
Finally, there is something to say you are not interested in relation that loop back to
the original object queried
aClass queryOutgoingInvocations withoutSelfLoops
will return all classes that own methods invoked from 'aClass' except
'aClass' itself (that would be a selfLoop)
one sees on this example that withoutSelfLoops involves some scoping:
queryOutgoingInvocations will return a collection of methods, but the query was sent to a
class.
So when we say withoutSelfLoop, we actually mean all methods that don't belong to the
class to which the query was sent.
This is equivalent to:
aClass queryOutgoingInvocations atClassScope withoutSelfLoops
Up to now, the semantic is rather Ok, but when you use hidden down scoping, it starts to
be less clear:
aMethod queryOutgoingReference withoutSelfLoops
will return all classes referenced in 'aMethod' taken at methodScope and removing
self loop.
In the end, the result will ignore references to the class owning 'aMethod'.
What do you think?
There is some logic in the semantic, but it is not so intuitive.
Looking at the query, I cannot convince me that this is the result that one would expect.
unclear to me.
Sorry
Should we change the semantic?
To what? (keep up-scoping and forbid implicit down-scoping? forbid all implicit
re-scoping?)
nicolas
PS: This may look like a rather theoretical question, but I actually have a bug partly
related to that and I need to know how to solve it
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev