On 14/09/2007, Peter William Lount <peter at smalltalk.org> wrote:
> >>    Person addInstanceMethod: [firstName: aString | firstName :=
> >> aString ].
> >
> > Not so easy.
> Yes, so very easy.
>
> > How do you guarantee that "firstName" is in scope when the block is
> > compiled?
> Why would you? Smalltalk is a dynamic language.

Maybe but Smalltalk also has lexical scoping, and here firstName seems
to need some kind of dynamic scope. IMHO that's counter-intuitive. The
semantics of Smalltalk were made to be simple, better to keep them so.

When we brainstormed on Sapphire's syntax, I proposed to add a new
literal for parsed-but-not-yet-compiled-syntax. You would then pass
those objects to reflective methods in charge of installing that code
in the system (and thus resolving variables and such). IMHO it's
better to clearly distinguish between program text and actual system
behavior.

BTW I was also pushing for using an executable form for fileins:
filing in a file would be the same making a "do it" on the file's
contents, installing code in the system while the doit runs. Now I'm
really not sure it's a good idea compared to a declarative syntax that
allows tools to manipulate the code as an abstract structure without
installing it.


-- 
Damien Pollet
type less, do more [ | ] http://typo.cdlm.fasmz.org