<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: Morph>>Delete</title></head><body>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Aaron J Reichow wrote:<br>
><br>
> > > 2. The format for specifying a message is
Class>>#message ; that is your<br>
> > > message should have read Morph>>#delete.<br>
> ><br>
> > Really? I use #delete to talk about the message, but
Morph>>delete to<br>
> > talk about a particular method.<br>
><br>
> The convention is to use the #. It's kind of neat
actually- do a<br>
> print-it on "Morph>>#delete" in a workspace- the
CompiledMethod for that<br>
> method is returned. #delete can be passed (a symbol), and
delete cannot.<br>
<br>
Yes, "Morph>>#delete" is a valid Smalltalk expression
and</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>"Morph>>delete" is not.
</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>I've always found the # symbol to be a blot on the otherwise
elegant syntax of Smalltalk. Its a bit surprising to me that
Smalltalk didn't adopt a different convention, such as typing all
symbols in bold face. delete would be an identifier reference,
whereas<b> delete</b> would be a symbol, and</div>
<div> <x-tab>
</x-tab>myMorph<b> delete</b></div>
<div>would send the message<b> delete</b> to the object bound to
myMorph.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>However, I'm about 25 years too late in proposing this, so I
don't expect that it will be adopted real soon now.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><x-tab>
</x-tab>Andrew</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
</body>
</html>