Why we should remove {} from Squeak

Withers, Robert rwithers at quallaby.com
Tue Oct 2 23:13:16 UTC 2001


This was done by Vassili Bykov, a while ago.  I have the code at home, that
will I post.  Unfortunately, this Class collides with the Tuple class from
LindaTalk.  Do we have a Namespace capability, that I am not aware of, that
I could use to differentiate the two?

Rob

> -----Original Message-----
> From: danielv at netvision.net.il [mailto:danielv at netvision.net.il]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 6:14 PM
> To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> Subject: Re: Why we should remove {} from Squeak
> 
> 
> Allen Wirfs-Brock <Allen_Wirfs-Brock at Instantiations.com> wrote:
> [the argument from attractive nuisence]
> 
> I think a good answer to that is lots of good examples, and 
> making doing
> the right thing easier, not avoiding a useful, natural shortcut...
> 
> An interesting idea I saw (maybe on this list) that might help in
> creating new abstrations is the Tuple class.
> 
> Tuple length: 5 revolutionSpeed: 2
> Creates an object with two instance variables named after the 
> keywords,
> with the appropriate values, accessors and initialization code. If a
> class answering this description doesn't yet exist, one is generated. 
> 
> So the abstraction creator now has only to (technically - re)name his
> creation, and it's ready to go. He can immidiately add smarts 
> to it and
> get benefits. Some of the technical busywork of creating the 
> abstraction
> is poofed away with a little doesNotUnderstand magic...
> 
> And the programmer has much less incentive to abuse Array for 
> this sort
> of things.
> 
> Daniel Vainsencher
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20011002/a8fc7190/attachment.htm


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list