On 31 May 2011 16:04, Igor Stasenko <siguctua at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2011/5/31 info at tomsik.cz <info at tomsik.cz>:
>> It's not my idea, it was just interesting and I'd be glad to
>> see some evolution (even pink plane) of squeak. I do not
>> propose anything - but array literals just stink, they're
>> another concept, which IMHO could be implemented in the very
>> same way as control operators were.
>>
>> My question was not about array literals, it was about
>> evolution of squeak - if something like this is at least planned?
>>
>
> Right question contains half of the answer.
> If you ask about language/system evolution in general, i think
> you will get more extended answers.
> Because array literals is really too little detail to care of.
> One way or another, but you still need to provide a way how to
> efficiently represent array literals in code.
> And i don't see anything which could be so much powerful comparing to
> existing syntax.
> Some other languages have syntax constructs even for more complex
> stuff: hash tables aka dictionaries.
> Yes, syntax maybe ugly and looking weird, but nevertheless, it serves
> its purpose: it provides a way to represent a hash table in source
> code.

Oh, and let's not forget ByteArrays - #[1 2 3 4]!

frank
>
>> Because I couldn't find any "long-process-plan".
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
>
>