|
From: Bruce M. <br...@mc...> - 2003-12-28 13:54:52
|
Mike, Good to see you back. I completely agree with you here. Your name looks perfect. regards, Bruce. On Saturday 27 December 2003 01:20 pm, Michael Ansley wrote: > Hi, Bruce, > > I noticed the discussion on the users list regarding the > PipelineDocument.toString() method. In the absence of other > suggestions, I'd like to suggest that: > > a) toString() stay as it is, because I think that any toString() method > should completely describe the object it's called on, > > b) we create a new method, say documentToString() or > getDocumentAsString(), which contains the original toString() > functionality. > > I'm disinclined to think of this as a bug, and as such, I don't see any > reason for 1.2 to revert to the old behaviour, although others may > disagree. However, I would prefer to see 1.3 follow the suggestion > outlined above. > > Thoughts... > > Any objections to me creating the new method in 1.3? Preference for a > name? > > > MikeA |