2009/8/2 Randal L. Schwartz <merlyn at stonehenge.com>:
>>>>>> "Bert" == Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de> writes:
>
> Bert> Commment ∉ Literals
>
> Yes, I understand that.
>
> To put the data into a comment means some magic has to happen to parse
> source text to get at the value.
>
> To put the data into a literal means I simply call the method to get
> the value.
>
> What's the downside of having it as a literal?
>
the downside is, that data you holding in a literal is not exactly
what you want it to be.
And often it needs some additional steps(convesion) to be useful.
So, since you anyways needing a conversion , converting from a literal
or from a method source code doesn't makes much difference, except
that if you keep it in literal - it will add a data bloat to an
.image.

> I know the downside of having it as a comment: far more mechanism, and thus,
> more fragile code and maintenance.
>
> --
> Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
> <merlyn at stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
> Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
> See http://methodsandmessages.vox.com/ for Smalltalk and Seaside discussion
>
>



-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.