Alan.Kay at squeakland.org
Fri Dec 5 00:52:33 UTC 2003
Lots of appearance things were nicer before the Smalltalk-80 release
efforts. I wasn't there at the time, but I think they decided
(probably rightly) to use the existing character set in the outside
world. And, today, it would be nice to do something like your
suggestion (maybe a different one) and many other cosmetic
possibilities, but several folks have pointed out that even a slight
deviation from unadorned text is not supported by all email clients
At 4:30 PM -0800 12/4/03, Andrew P. Black wrote:
>>Aaron J Reichow wrote:
>>> > > 2. The format for specifying a message is Class>>#message ;
>>>that is your
>>> > > message should have read Morph>>#delete.
>>> > Really? I use #delete to talk about the message, but Morph>>delete to
>>> > talk about a particular method.
>>> The convention is to use the #. It's kind of neat actually- do a
>>> print-it on "Morph>>#delete" in a workspace- the CompiledMethod for that
>>> method is returned. #delete can be passed (a symbol), and delete cannot.
>>Yes, "Morph>>#delete" is a valid Smalltalk expression and
>>"Morph>>delete" is not.
>I've always found the # symbol to be a blot on the otherwise elegant
>syntax of Smalltalk. Its a bit surprising to me that Smalltalk
>didn't adopt a different convention, such as typing all symbols in
>bold face. delete would be an identifier reference, whereas delete
>would be a symbol, and
> myMorph delete
>would send the message delete to the object bound to myMorph.
>However, I'm about 25 years too late in proposing this, so I don't
>expect that it will be adopted real soon now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Squeak-dev