[squeak-dev] terse Object concatenation

Chris Muller asqueaker at gmail.com
Wed Sep 22 18:22:39 UTC 2010

Randal, whoosh!  I think you didn't read this thread closely.  Please
allow me to re-iterate, from my very original message of this thread:

> I find this particularly useful for user-interfaces that apply
> Smalltalk interpretation to user text input, that the user was able to
> write "lists" of items in a very terse and natural way rather than
> demanding curly-brace developer-syntax.

And, again, in a subsequent message:

> For non-technical users, the latter _is_ beneficial because it is more
> natural.  I'm not talking about them writing Smalltalk methods, I'm
> talking about when they specify, for example, a list of columns in a
> text-input field in the user-interface that the program to which I
> apply Smalltalk interpretation (it's actually more sophisticated than
> that, but for sake of simple explanation..).

And, even again, a third time, the point showcased in a message all its own:

> As a developer, I, too, always use the standard brace-notation for
> creating Arrays and will continue to do so.  This has never been about
> introducing an enhanced-API to developers.  My advocacy relates to
> exposing an API like this to a _non-developer_ user:

so you've definitely missed the overall point.  As far as:

> Until it hides a problem.  Or breaks something else.

I will only say that I am not going to respond to any more FUD type of

 - Chris

On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Randal L. Schwartz
<merlyn at stonehenge.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "Chris" == Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> writes:
>>> I agree, it looks akward and hackish to me too; a step backward from the
>>> nice API for collections we currently have.
> Chris> I guess I just don't understand why:
> Chris>   field1, field2, field3
> Chris> looks "awkward and hackish?"  It is the most natural way to express a
> Chris> "list" of things that you can possibly have...
> Funny thing that.  We already have:
>      { field1 . field2 . field3 }
> which to me reads even clearer.
> Chris> You don't have use it.  It's optional.
> Until it hides a problem.  Or breaks something else.
> I vote no if I get a vote.
> --
> 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

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list