On 14/09/2007, Jason Johnson <jason.johnson.081 at gmail.com> wrote:
> To be honest, I don't think it matters what the format is.  It could

The point was, it has to be a format, not a program :)


> just as well be XML.  I think if we have a really good, Smalltalk
> neutral revision system all "file in" work could be done with that
> tool exclusively.  At that point all dependency problems, etc. are the
> job of the RCS.
>
> On 9/14/07, Damien Pollet <damien.pollet at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 14/09/2007, Peter William Lount <peter at smalltalk.org> wrote:
> > > >>    Person addInstanceMethod: [firstName: aString | firstName :=
> > > >> aString ].
> > > >
> > > > Not so easy.
> > > Yes, so very easy.
> > >
> > > > How do you guarantee that "firstName" is in scope when the block is
> > > > compiled?
> > > Why would you? Smalltalk is a dynamic language.
> >
> > Maybe but Smalltalk also has lexical scoping, and here firstName seems
> > to need some kind of dynamic scope. IMHO that's counter-intuitive. The
> > semantics of Smalltalk were made to be simple, better to keep them so.
> >
> > When we brainstormed on Sapphire's syntax, I proposed to add a new
> > literal for parsed-but-not-yet-compiled-syntax. You would then pass
> > those objects to reflective methods in charge of installing that code
> > in the system (and thus resolving variables and such). IMHO it's
> > better to clearly distinguish between program text and actual system
> > behavior.
> >
> > BTW I was also pushing for using an executable form for fileins:
> > filing in a file would be the same making a "do it" on the file's
> > contents, installing code in the system while the doit runs. Now I'm
> > really not sure it's a good idea compared to a declarative syntax that
> > allows tools to manipulate the code as an abstract structure without
> > installing it.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Damien Pollet
> > type less, do more [ | ] http://typo.cdlm.fasmz.org
> >
> >
>
>


-- 
Damien Pollet
type less, do more [ | ] http://typo.cdlm.fasmz.org