Kickoff for SqueakCVS? Re: Squeak and CM

Doug Way dway at mat.net
Mon Jan 17 07:10:28 UTC 2000


On Sun, 16 Jan 2000, Göran Hultgren wrote:

> So... we (my company, we are 4 guys) have a Linux machine on the net
> with good bandwidth that I have full control of - it has CVS 1.10
> running and also a few Swikis (not the latest Comanche, but hey...),
> should I create a new one for this little project of ours?

I would say, go for it.  (Or a small mailing list might even be a good
idea.)

On Sun, 16 Jan 2000, Stefan Matthias Aust wrote:

> At 11:01 16.01.00 -0600, R. A. Harmon wrote:
>
> >For programatically generating test suite methods, I replaced ":" with
"X"
>
> Also an idea.  Probably a matter of style.  What's better read?
>
> at:put:  -->  atXputX
> at:put:  -->  at_put_

I tend to think the "_" is easier to read, and is less likely to cause
conflicts (at least with Squeak, which doesn't allow underscores in
selector names).

If ANSI compatibility is an issue (I guess underscores are allowed in
selectors as part of the ANSI spec?), a third option would be to use
periods (".") in place of colons (":").  You would be guaranteed that no
Smalltalk selector could ever have a "." in its name to cause a conflict.
(Not quite as readable as the "_", but not bad, either.)

> >For operators I used the following a mapping: [...]
>
> That idea generates a nice and readable output, but as you can come up
with
> any  kind of selectors (in ANSI not even restricted to 2 characters),
I'd
> prefer an automatic mapping which has a word per char, for example
>
> =   ->  Xequal
> ==  ->  XequalEqual
> <,> ->  XlessCommaGreater

A thought I had was to use the ASCII encoding for each character, e.g.
"==" would be "BINARY_61_61".  (BINARY for Binary Selector.)  In
retrospect, Stefan's idea is probably better, though (more readable).  I
would stick with only a one word per character mapping, too.

- Doug Way
  dway at mat.net






More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list