On Aug 28, 2007, at 10:50 AM, Denis Kudriashov wrote:

>
> 2007/8/27, Alan Lovejoy <squeak-dev.sourcery at forum-mail.net>:
> Denis Kudriashov wrote:
> > Smalltalk is wonderfull language. We can implement any ideas without
> > making changes in language (as Java or C# live).
> > I think pipes is very usefull in DSL implementation and usage,  
> simpler
> > and fast object inspecting. But long message chaines in domain code
> > are bad smell
>
> There haven't been all that many syntax changes to Smalltalk since its
> public release as ST80.  Off the top of my head, I can list the  
> following:
>
>
>
> These changes does not have an influence on language core, language  
> semantics. Its just was some convenient constructions for building  
> special objects. But when we put in Smalltalk new operator we  
> change it semantics. Why we must do it?
> Bert implemented it in clean Smalltalk without any language  
> changes. Why it is not enough?
>
> Best regards,
> Denis
>
>

Well said.

My view is that adding the pipe you asserting that chained functional  
applications are good and should be used more. Is this what you want ?

The good tricks we have seen are not enough for me because I don't  
like the cascade to change it's meaning while reading.

on the pipe (which I look at as beautiful hack)

I't like making the question mark become an exclamation mark because  
there was a special keyword (asPipe).
"!" and "?" are both terminators and I don't like their meaning to be  
switched while reading.

Then I think that chained applications of functions is good way to  
reuse methods.


Fabio Filasieno





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20070828/ae6f5a84/attachment.htm