Saving morphs to file
Andreas Raab
andreas.raab at gmx.de
Tue Jul 18 17:08:38 UTC 2006
stéphane ducasse wrote:
> On 18 juil. 06, at 07:33, Andreas Raab wrote:
>> Yes. Alternatively, if we had a "literal object/class" syntax this
>> would be very simple, too.
>
> could you explain what you mean by literal object/class
Simply put, instead of defining a heavy-weight class (like we have right
now), you have syntactic support for an inline object definition, making
it possible to do something like here:
sorted := def SortedCollection [
sorts: a before: b [
^ a < b
]
]
The idea is that the we "def"ine an object (which also has an associated
class anonymously derived from SortedCollection but that is besides the
point here) and can override some methods right at this point. The main
advantage is that the above makes class creation very light-weight,
almost unnoticable (really only as the byproduct of creating an object
with specialized behavior) which is very different from the current
heavy-weight use of classes (requiring multiple context switches, names
for the classes etc).
This of course gets more interesting when you need more than single
parametrized method but the above illustrates the basic idea.
Cheers,
- Andreas
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|