> From: Michael Lucas-Smith <ich(a)driftwood.darktech.org>
> I could have _sworn_ this was called #conform: aBlock ...? Maybe thats
> just an IBM Smalltalk thing?
Well, the ANSI spec, or at least the draft that I have, calls it
#allSatisfy:, and Squeak does have #anySatisfy:, but neither
#conform: nor #allSatisfy: . So it may actually be just an IBM
Smalltalk thing, but I don't really know that much about standard
protocols.
Incidentally, I found the ANSI spec an excellent overview of
standard protocols, with everything collected in neat summaries.
That does rekindle the desire for formal protocols, with protocols
managing the message name, a separate protocol hierarchy and browser
and even [gasp!] optional means of specifying protocols in messages.
The common syntactic means of specifying protocol (types) in
Smalltalk extensions seem to be angle brackets, <Integer> myInt.
Wouldn't it be a good idea to modify the standard compiler so that it
ignores such constructs? That way, experiments in that direction
could produce code that's still compilable on everybody else's
system.
Marcel