About >> (was: Re: Newbie questions)
yoshiki at squeakland.org
Fri Feb 18 19:02:42 UTC 2005
> > I am by no mean an old timer, but I think the original convention
> > was to write:
> > (Class name)>(method category name)>(method name)
> > but the method category name is not necessary to specify unique method
> > so people omit it and write:
> > (Class name)>>(method name)
> Interesting, haven't heard that one before.
I forgot where I saw the verbose one. Probably in the Green Book.
After seeing the verbose one, I just guessed that rest of the story.
> Hehe, that's a tiny hack I put in years ago ...
Yup. It is cute.
> It's just a synonym for #compiledMethodAt:, and I only very recently
> saw it used in actual code. The only uglyness is that it requires
> the hash mark, whereas in regular conversation we leave that out.
Yes. That would be cuter. If the class can decide how to parse the
rest of message based on the selector...
More information about the Squeak-dev