On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 02:25:09 -0700, Jason Johnson  
<jason.johnson.081 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Aha.  In text it can be really hard to detect unless you're suggesting
> something insane like eating children. :)  Perhaps you thought you
> were doing just that here, but with the crazy suggestions lately I
> don't know what to expect.

Well, the cues I forwarded were using words like "abomination" but, yeah,  
given the tone of some threads, it probably wasn't over the top enough.  
It's almost like we're discussing politics here.

> I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by this.  Why should an
> object's code need to reference it's own context?  Do you mean "why
> should it need to explicitly state 'self'"?

That is what I mean.

> And by "If it's too hard for YOU too keep track of your object's
> context" do you mean I should remember if what methods my object/class
> has?

I'm just saying if that the removal of "self" renders your code  
incomprehensible, you have bigger problems than anything that removing  
"self" would create.

>>         Tim is the one who used the word "tasteless" to describe a  
>> situation where one doesn't constantly need to explicitly reference the  
>> current
>> context.
>
> Hrm, you mean he doesn't like it unless you constantly reference the
> current context?  Is that in this thread somewhere?

Quoth Mr. Rowledge: "Having a special case that lets you leave out the  
recipient if it is 'self' would be clunky, confusing and tasteless."

> Clear to you.  To me it's uniform and consistent.  Traits I value
> highly in this world of mediocre to down-right appalling language
> designs.

That's an argument to have with Andreas.<s>

> But in self it's uniform, no?  In self it's all just slots so
> accessing a method looks the same as accessing a local variable.  In
> that language I wouldn't expect to use self to call local methods.

To me, that would be consistent: Access variables and methods identically,  
without knowing which you're doing unless you're at the level where it has  
to matter.

> So do you prefer the self language?  Instead of trying to turn
> Smalltalk into Self, it might be more rewarding to get a group trying
> to bring Self back on track.

No, not particularly. Or I should say, I don't know it well enough to have  
a preference. I consider a lot of the distinctions between Self and  
Smalltalk trifles compared to the suggestions of meta-language constructs.  
I once modeled a language after Smalltalk which had meta-language syntax  
(and what you might call "sub-language" syntax, with the idea that the  
language could sort-of assemble itself). It was horrible, needless to say,  
so I'm intrigued to see it done well.