Aaron J Reichow wrote:
>
> > > 2. The format for specifying a message is
Class>>#message ; that is your
> > > message should have read Morph>>#delete.
> >
> > Really? I use #delete to talk about the message, but
Morph>>delete to
> > talk about a particular method.
>
> The convention is to use the #. It's kind of neat
actually- do a
> print-it on "Morph>>#delete" in a workspace- the
CompiledMethod for that
> method is returned. #delete can be passed (a symbol), and
delete cannot.
Yes, "Morph>>#delete" is a valid Smalltalk expression
and
"Morph>>delete" is not.
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 delete would be a symbol, and
myMorph delete
would send the message delete to the object bound to
myMorph.
However, I'm about 25 years too late in proposing this, so I
don't expect that it will be adopted real soon now.
Andrew