FROM : Thomas Davie
DATE : Sun Apr 24 12:24:14 2005
>> You seem to think that refactoring is somehow type-dependent
>>
>>
> ...
>
>
>> Refactoring has nothing to do with type. If you rename the method
>> 'whatever', you just change all senders.
>>
>>
>
> The example the others pushed as the advantage over a regexp was
> "renaming a method aaa of class A, leaving a method aaa of class B
> intact". That has ***all*** to do with type.
>
> Presumed we skip this, there is preciously little added value in
> smart refactoring as compared with a good regexp search&replace.
> Which Xcode has.
>
Thats because you haven't thought of re-factoring as a useful tool,
and because of that haven't thought of all the things it could do...
Could regexp search and replace easily find all occurrences of a
sequence of statements with different arguments, put them into a
method, and turn all of the original occurrences into method calls?
Bob
DATE : Sun Apr 24 12:24:14 2005
>> You seem to think that refactoring is somehow type-dependent
>>
>>
> ...
>
>
>> Refactoring has nothing to do with type. If you rename the method
>> 'whatever', you just change all senders.
>>
>>
>
> The example the others pushed as the advantage over a regexp was
> "renaming a method aaa of class A, leaving a method aaa of class B
> intact". That has ***all*** to do with type.
>
> Presumed we skip this, there is preciously little added value in
> smart refactoring as compared with a good regexp search&replace.
> Which Xcode has.
>
Thats because you haven't thought of re-factoring as a useful tool,
and because of that haven't thought of all the things it could do...
Could regexp search and replace easily find all occurrences of a
sequence of statements with different arguments, put them into a
method, and turn all of the original occurrences into method calls?
Bob






Cocoa mail archive

