On 26/08/07, Ramon Leon <ramon.leon at allresnet.com> wrote:
> > As observation..
> >
> > This discussion is a good example of purists who throwing away
> > any new ideas just because they 'don't follow standard' or
> > 'can be done with current syntax'.
> >
> > Honestly I see no harm in adding a pipe '|' symbol as a
> > special syntax symbol, like cascade ';' or period '.'
> > A pipe is like continuation which simply does: evaluate
> > expression to the left, then continue evaluation with
> > expression to the right, taking left result as receiver.
> > We need only minor changes to parser to add this syntax
> > sugar, and no changes in complier because it don't breaks old
> > syntax or message passing semantics.
>
> It's a good idea, the pipe, but not necessarily a well thought through
> implementation.  As Tim and Has point out, | is already used in several
> places in the image and using it for special syntax for the pipe would cause
> problems with existing code.  As Hans mentions, there's also the issue of
> portability to other dialects.
>

Yes, i missed that its already used as selector (just little scared
using | in expressions, because its already used to define temps in
methods and blocks). But i was after idea, no matter what symbol could
be used for it.


> Fabio's proposal to hijack ; for a pipe operator is obviously a non starter,
> he clearly doesn't understand how much Smalltalk code relies on ;.
>
Yes, i agree, cascade operator is not something which can be just dropped out.

> The way to get past the purists isn't by argument, it's by showing them an
> implementation that works, and addresses their concerns.  A working
> implementation is the difference between some who's serious about an idea
> and someone who's just complaining.  It's easy to point at the old timers
> and blame them for blocking progress, it's much harder to do something that
> would actually be considered progress.
>

I like an idea because for me its obvious, that pipe operator will
improve the code readability, and also helps type less when coding.
I start typing expression not from '(' , but from message send, so
first i have to type:

a someMessage: param1

then i see that i need to send second message to result, but since my
first message uses keyword selector i can't just continue typing and
must go back and place '(' before send , and then ')' after it. and
only then i start typing next message.
Also, sometimes , if expression became too long, its hard to find
place where i must put open parenthesis, thats where 'pipe' can be
really helpful.
Maybe some people are soo intelligent, that they start typing
expression from 2 or 3 opening parenthesis, because they already see
how their expression will look like. Sorry then, I'm not so gifted to
see full expression in mind, which can be about 10 lines of code. ;)

Let me remind you , people, that one of the strongest sides of
smalltalk, is easy to read and easy to express code. And smalltalk was
always after that idea, from its very birth. I just want to point that
denying an idea which makes it even more simpler is against spirit of
smalltalk. So, who the purist? :)

> Squeak is the perfect experimental platform, so if someone hacked it up, and
> it worked well, there's a fairly decent chance people will look seriously at
> it.  Even if they don't, it could always be maintained as a private
> extension to the language (I'm sure many exist).
>

And about working implementation, you are right. I can do this. But i
doubt that someone who against idea from its roots will use it
someday. See, if i don't like lemons, you can buy me million of them,
but i'm still will not eat them :)


> Ramon Leon
> http://onsmalltalk.com
>
>
>


-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.