Am 18.02.2005 um 01:23 schrieb Yoshiki Ohshima:
Joseph,
- What is the significance of the use of >> in many of your emails?
Is this a SmallTalkism that I missed somewhere or is this a convention used to tie a Class name and a method name together in discussions?
I am by no mean an old timer, but I think the original convention was to write:
(Class name)>(method category name)>(method name)
but the method category name is not necessary to specify unique method so people omit it and write:
(Class name)>>(method name)
Interesting, haven't heard that one before.
. Interestingly, Smalltalk can have '>>' (or we usually write #>> to signify it is a Symbol), as a method selector. For example, if you evaluate a line like:
Class>>#name
in a workspace, you'll get an instance of CompileMethod that is bound to the #name method of Class.
Hehe, that's a tiny hack I put in years ago ... It's just a synonym for #compiledMethodAt:, and I only very recently saw it used in actual code. The only uglyness is that it requires the hash mark, whereas in regular conversation we leave that out.
- Bert -