On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 12:27:41AM +0100, Dominic Fox wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm a Squeak/Smalltalk newbie with some experience of doing OO in other 
> languages, chiefly VB (which is not at all great for that purpose) and Python 
> (which is rather better, but not in use in my place of work), and a 
> smattering of FP that's still not settled in my mind. I'm trying to get my 
> head round a couple of things in Smalltalk, and the documentation I've 
> browsed so far hasn't helped much: my queries more to do with idiom than 
> anything else. Can anyone give me a clue as to where I might find some 
> answers to questions like these:
> 
> * If I want to expose an instance's private fields, do I have to code accessor 
> methods every time? Is there an alternative to writing
> 
> getFoo
> 	^ foo
> 
> and 
> 
> setFoo: newFoo
> 	foo := newFoo
> 
> over and over again?

Yes, there is an alternative.  If you open the Preferences browser, the
"general" section has a pref named "autoAccessors" that might do what 
you want.

> 
> * Is the best way to make what in C++ or Java you'd call "constructors" to 
> write class methods that create, initialize and then return an instance, e.g.
> 
> newFooWithBar: initialBar
> 	| newFoo |
> 	newFoo := Foo new; setBar: initialBar.
> 	^ newFoo
> 
> or is there a more concise way?
> 

That looks about right.

> * Can I treat blocks as first-class entities, e.g. return them from methods, 
> pass them around etc? Can I use them to implement LISP-like closures? Even if 
> I can, is this a "natural" smalltalky way to do things?
> 

Yes, yes, and yes.  The second yes is dependent on the block closure work done
by Anthony Hannan.  No URL 'cause I'm in a hurry, but check the list archives
for the past couple of months.

> * What about function/method pointers? Can I treat one of an instance's 
> methods as a block, or do I have to make a new block and call the method 
> inside that?
> 

The latter.  You might also be interested in Object>>perform:/perform:with:,
and the class MessageSend.

> Finally,
> 
> * Is this list a good place to ask questions like this? If it isn't, is there 
> a more suitable one?

This is the right place.
Joshua

> 
> thanks,
> Dominic