[squeak-dev] smalltalk evolution
Juan Vuletich
juan at jvuletich.org
Wed Jun 1 01:19:48 UTC 2011
info at tomsik.cz wrote:
> In short:
>
> 1.) binary messages make sense only for math. I've never implemented
> even one binary message, have you? (for non-math things)
That's not true (the first part. I don't know what you have ever
implemented).
For instance look for implementors of #=, #==, #>, #>>, #->, #+, #,,
#&, #|.
This is a nice example of something I have implemented:
Text
buildWithStyles: ({
#H3 -> (ParagraphStyle named: 'Heading 3').
#b11 -> (CharacterStyle named: 'Blue 11').
#r10b -> (CharacterStyle named: 'Red 10 bold').
#g11i -> (CharacterStyle named: 'Green 11 Italic')
} as: Dictionary)
contents: [ :builder |
builder , 'Starts with no character style. But later gets' <
#b11 , ' small and blue' , ' and stays like that. Then' >< #r10b , '
emphasized and inside this,' < #g11i , ' green and italic' > ' for a
while. Later' > ' back to Heading 3.' / #H3].
The objectives for this were:
- the styles can be crated dynamically, and there's no need to add new
selectors for new styles
- it is very unobtrusive, the text is reasonably easy to read (much
nicer than, for example, rtf or html), especially with Shout.
Anyway, even if it were true that binary messages "make sense only for
math", that wouldn't be a reason to ban them! Math stuff is useful too!
Cheers,
Juan Vuletich
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|