Pipe syntax and the current methods

Ron Teitelbaum Ron at USMedRec.com
Mon Aug 27 18:57:00 UTC 2007


Hi Randal,

Thanks for the suggestion.  

To be clear, even though I support using the symbol ';;' as pipe operator IF
we put it in, I doubt I would actually ever use it.  I prefer parenthesis,
and agree that if you are many levels nested you probably need to ether
create more objects to model your complicated behavior, or you need to add
temps to make it easier to read your code.

On the other hand I find the cascade extremely useful, especially for
creation methods.  I find chaining more tolerable when the object doesn't
change.  It just makes more sense.  For the same reason I usually look at
long chained methods as an indication that the code is probably written on
the wrong class and needs to be cleaned up.

Ron 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Randal L. Schwartz
> 
> 
> 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 at 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!





More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list