27 Aug
2007
27 Aug
'07
8:20 p.m.
Would any of the "pipe" advocates mind taking a stab at the *current* source methods, and rewrite the method showing how pipe syntax would have simplified or clarified the method?
I ask this because I suspect that if you're following good practices (such as those adovocated in Beck's "Smalltalk Best Practice Patterns"), you won't actually *need* a pipe syntax, because your code would never have gotten that complicated.
So, instead of writing Smalltalk with a bias for your previous programming language where pipe makes more sense, how about taking some *native* Smalltalk to show how pipe would have helped?
--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
merlyn@stonehenge.com URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/
Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!