On 19/09/2007, Michael van der Gulik mikevdg@gmail.com wrote:
Array is a class, not a message. This is /not/ elegant and simply doesn't make sense. This is my last comment on this approach.
What is possible is:
self add: (Kernel-Array new: 4).
Here, #- is a message.
Again, discussion downs not to about how namespaces should behave, but to choosing appropriate and conventional syntax for it. Personally, i don't think its really matters. Please, people, lets focus on more important things, if you don't want to flame this topic, like in previous 'pipe syntax'.
Michael.
On 9/19/07, Brent Pinkney brent@zamail.co.za wrote:
+10000 for:
self add: (Kernel Array new: 4).
This mechanism preseves the elegant foundation of Smalltalk: 'Everyting is
an Object, which receives a messages and returns an object'.
In this (Dan's ?) solution, the implementation is late bound and can use
the same lookup algorithm as used for messages.
The other solutions lack this elegance.
On Dinsdag, 18 September 2007, Ron Teitelbaum wrote:
+1 for ::
Even if it is really
self add: (Kernel::Array new: 4).
:)
Ron
-----Original Message----- From: squeak-dev-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org
[mailto: squeak-dev-
bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Bert
Freudenberg
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 6:31 AM To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list Subject: Re: Quick comparison of two Namespaces proposals
On Sep 18, 2007, at 11:55 , Michael van der Gulik wrote:
self add: Kernel.Array new: 4. self add: Kernel::Array new: 4.
What do other people think?
+10 for ::
Though I hope this won't become a bikeshed discussion of syntax, but actually result in a Namespace solution getting adopted.
- Bert -