On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 10:17:41 +0100, G"oran wrote:
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
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?
Inasmuch as containers and components form a hierarchy: yes. Inasmuch as the atom of a hierarchy can always root a subhierarchy versus, an atom of a namespace can always be subdivided: no.
Suggestion: you take the branch marked with *yes* :)
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?
Partially; more specific: an attempt to use the same syntax for coding and for maintenance (for doIt and friends) which *also* can be overridden (specialized) at will (like, for example, in the Smalltalk language every method can be overridden at will :)
In this particular discussion, I mean *not* to override your #scopeVariable method in Parser. Instead, here's the difference:
binding := scope perform: #>~ with: varName asSymbol "cannot just send >~ here ;-)"
Note the difference between #bindingOf: and #>~ (the latter is a binary message, suitable for easy doIt).
/Klaus
regards, Göran