On 25 February 2014 15:52, Casey Ransberger casey.obrien.r@gmail.com wrote:
Ah, the sacrificial underscore. I like the left arrow and the up arrow a lot, but I see how this could mess one up when one has code with underscores in it.
I don't have any code with underscores in it. They don't seem to fit the language stylistically to my eye.
Ah, but which one? Underscore as assignment? Or selectors with underscores?
(My personal vote? Big fat -1 on underscore-as-assignment: I think it's really ugly. +1 on underscore-in-selector, because I like the freedom, and because it reduces pain when working with underscore_using_languages.
I like names like "slot-value", but we're not writing lisp here...)
frank
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Levente Uzonyi leves@elte.hu wrote:
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014, J. Vuletich (mail lists) wrote:
Quoting tim Rowledge tim@rowledge.org:
On 24-02-2014, at 10:52 AM, Nicolas Cellier nicolas.cellier.aka.nice@gmail.com wrote:
Though being reserved for return statements, the upArrow ^ could perfectly be accepted as a character composing a binary selector, like the verticalBar | already is.
[snip]
What do you think?
I think that it would be a massive cognitive overload when reading code. The return signifier needs to be a unique artefact, whatever it is.
foo bar blah ^ ribbet factorial
Quick - is that correct code or should there be a ‘.’ in front of the ^ ? Will it crash the spaceship?
I wish we still had a proper up arrow rather than a caret, not to mention the proper left arrow assign instead of the nonsensical Pascal :=.
StrikeFont allInstancesDo: [ :each | each useLeftArrow ]
That solves the problem, but it makes another. We lose underscore character with that change. :)
Levente
:)
tim
tim Rowledge; tim@rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim If you think C++ is not overly complicated, just what is a protected abstract virtual base pure virtual private destructor and when was the last time you needed one? -- Tom Cargin
Cheers, Juan Vuletich