Why we should remove {} from Squeak

danielv at netvision.net.il danielv at netvision.net.il
Wed Oct 3 21:06:59 UTC 2001


"These days
it's all in the mind
... it's elemental" (Tears for fears)

Yes, those objects aren't full of methods like replaceAll:with: that
you're using to move their parts around. Blocks are as immutable as Pi
in my mind (well, at least till the day I *need* to mess with them).

My chances of changing one of those while mistakenly thinking I can -
zilch.
Which is the only thing that matters - I'm not really hung up on formal
proofs.

Daniel

Lex Spoon <lex at cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
> 
> > 
> 
> > * As I said in my first reply to Stephane, I don't mind having an object
> > that's created at compile time, so long as it's immutable (because its
> > semantics then make its history and time of creation irrelevant). So
> > Booleans, Blocks (to be precise, closures, if they were), Characters,
> > Integers and Floats are okay. Arrays and Strings I expect to be mutable,
> > so they are not ok.
> 
> Actually, blocks, characters, large integers, and floats are all mutable
> in Squeak, too.  It's just not a problem because people know better than
> to modify these things.
> 
> 
> -Lex




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list