[squeak-dev] Authorize upArrow in binary symbols

Frank Shearar frank.shearar at gmail.com
Wed Feb 26 17:45:21 UTC 2014


On 25 February 2014 15:52, Casey Ransberger <casey.obrien.r at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ah, the sacrificial underscore. I like the left arrow and the up arrow a
> lot, but I see how this could mess one up when one has code with underscores
> in it.
>
> I don't have any code with underscores in it. They don't seem to fit the
> language stylistically to my eye.

Ah, but which one? Underscore as assignment? Or selectors with underscores?

(My personal vote? Big fat -1 on underscore-as-assignment: I think
it's really ugly. +1 on underscore-in-selector, because I like the
freedom, and because it reduces pain when working with
underscore_using_languages.

I like names like "slot-value", but we're not writing lisp here...)

frank

> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Levente Uzonyi <leves at elte.hu> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 24 Feb 2014, J. Vuletich (mail lists) wrote:
>>
>>> Quoting tim Rowledge <tim at rowledge.org>:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 24-02-2014, at 10:52 AM, Nicolas Cellier
>>>> <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Though being reserved for return statements, the upArrow ^ could
>>>>> perfectly be accepted as a character composing a binary selector, like the
>>>>> verticalBar | already is.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>
>>>> I think that it would be a massive cognitive overload when reading code.
>>>> The return signifier needs to be a unique artefact, whatever it is.
>>>>
>>>> foo bar blah ^ ribbet factorial
>>>>
>>>> Quick - is that correct code or should there be a ‘.’ in front of the ^
>>>> ? Will it crash the spaceship?
>>>>
>>>> I wish we still had a proper up arrow rather than a caret, not to
>>>> mention the proper left arrow assign instead of the nonsensical Pascal :=.
>>>
>>>
>>> StrikeFont allInstancesDo: [ :each | each useLeftArrow ]
>>
>>
>> That solves the problem, but it makes another. We lose underscore
>> character with that change. :)
>>
>>
>> Levente
>>
>>
>>>
>>> :)
>>>
>>>> tim
>>>> --
>>>> tim Rowledge; tim at rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
>>>> If you think C++ is not overly complicated, just what is a protected
>>>> abstract virtual base pure virtual private destructor and when was the last
>>>> time you needed one? -- Tom Cargin
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Juan Vuletich
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list