Hi!
Hi G"oran,
on Thu, 30 Nov 2006 01:19:41 +0100, you wrote:
Hi! Giovanni Corriga giovanni@corriga.net wrote:
Il giorno gio, 30/11/2006 alle 12.07 +1300, Michael van der Gulik ha scritto:
On 11/29/06, Klaus D. Witzel klaus.witzel@cobss.com wrote:
Motivation for syntax: we say SmallInteger and LargeInteger
to
subclasses of Integer and obviously prefer the opposite direction for a namespace hierarchy. Let's replace the suggested :: by a legitimate binary message Morphic >~ View Tweak >~ View System >~ Default >~ Compiler My >~ Terrific >~ Compiler
Implementing Namespaces like this would mean that your code runs slower. In order to refer to a class, you'll need to send a message
to
a Namespace every time you refer to it, rather than just refer to the class directly.
Also, your message names are capitalised, which will have a negative affect on your karma.
Isn't this what Henryk's Environments do?
Henrik, not Henryk. And I would probably say Dan's/Henrik's Environments
- Dan started that path and Henrik tried to fulfil it.
Personally I think it is too complicated - I dislike hierarchies in general :).
My mistake: I wrote "hierarchy" but in fact the space is organized like the space in Trait (users of a trait composition and the composition's components).
You lost me. You have "System >~ Default >~ Compiler" - that is a path down a hierarchy, right?
But yes, the idea was to use late binding using message sends etc.
No, this was not my idea. The compiler reduces the #>~ message symbol:
Ok, but it was in Henrik's/Dan's code. :)
(A >~ B) "results in" (Association key: #B value: B) "which is a component of A"
Eh... so you do compile time binding just like I do? Then what was the point of using a "binary message"? Just syntactic?
regards, Göran