Hi all,
I just started with Squeak and SmallTalk and am enjoying programming in it for the first time in a long time. I have a couple of newbie questions, though that I have not found adequate answers for elsewhere.
1) 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? 2) How do I run Squeak in a non-ui mode? I have seen a few items talking about -headless on the command line. Is that all there is to it?
Thanx, joe
P.S. Imagine my surprise when, on my first day on the list, the ANN of a new leadership and all the followup mail hits me. Man, didn't know what to think about that. Fortunately (?) I am way to uninformed to converse on that topic intelligently and only hope that the best thing for the community and for Squeak comes out of it. :-)
Hi Joseph!
Joseph Jones darkdescendant@mac.com wrote:
Hi all,
I just started with Squeak and SmallTalk and am enjoying programming in
To not look newbyish - write Smalltalk without capital T. :)
it for the first time in a long time. I have a couple of newbie questions, though that I have not found adequate answers for elsewhere.
- 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?
Yes, it is such a convention. Not sure either where it really comes from.
- How do I run Squeak in a non-ui mode? I have seen a few items
talking about -headless on the command line. Is that all there is to it?
Should be.
Thanx, joe
P.S. Imagine my surprise when, on my first day on the list, the ANN of a new leadership and all the followup mail hits me. Man, didn't know what to think about that. Fortunately (?) I am way to uninformed to converse on that topic intelligently and only hope that the best thing for the community and for Squeak comes out of it. :-)
Hehe, well - you sure picked an interesting point in time to join us! :)
The current torrent on this list is not representative, even though the traffic in general is quite high. And yes, my bet (but I am of course in the eye of the storm) is that this is something very good. But all we can do is to see how it turns out.
regards, Göran
To not look newbyish - write Smalltalk without capital T. :)
DOH! ::blush::
it for the first time in a long time. I have a couple of newbie questions, though that I have not found adequate answers for elsewhere.
- 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?
Yes, it is such a convention. Not sure either where it really comes from.
Thanx.
- How do I run Squeak in a non-ui mode? I have seen a few items
talking about -headless on the command line. Is that all there is to it?
Should be.
Cool.
Thanx, joe
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)
. 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.
-- Yoshiki
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 -
Bert,
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.
I forgot where I saw the verbose one. Probably in the Green Book. After seeing the verbose one, I just guessed that rest of the story.
Hehe, that's a tiny hack I put in years ago ...
Yup. It is cute.
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.
Yes. That would be cuter. If the class can decide how to parse the rest of message based on the selector...
-- Yoshiki
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.
Yes. That would be cuter. If the class can decide how to parse the rest of message based on the selector...
is also used by the RefactoringBrowser. Chuck also used it for a while, until I realized the method already had two other definitions. :)
-Lex
Bert Freudenberg bert@impara.de wrote:
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.
By the way, this is also available in VisualAge Smalltalk/IBM Smalltalk.
- Bernhard
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Bernhard Pieber -
Bert Freudenberg -
goran.krampe＠bluefish.se -
Joseph Jones -
Lex Spoon -
Yoshiki Ohshima