Quick comparison of two Namespaces proposals

Tansel tansel at squeakonline.com
Tue Sep 18 23:27:11 UTC 2007


 
 >  Array is a class, not a message. This is /not/ elegant and simply
doesn't make sense. This is my last comment on this approach. 
 
That's not strictly correct. In the given example it is a message: you are
simply asking the given namespace to answer the named class, and the only
confusing thing about it is the message is capitalized.  What if it were
written as "Kernel array new:4"?  
It is already possible to create a capitalized message in Squeak, we just
avoid it because it gets confusing. However in the given context I simply
applaud Dan's genius and I second that it is a simple and elegant solution.
For the more conservative approach I would have no problem with a namespace
creating a non-capitalized accessor message for the given class but that
could cause other confusions.   
 
Tansel 

 >  +10000 for:
 >  self add: (Kernel Array new: 4).
 >  This mechanism preseves the elegant foundation of Smalltalk: 'Everyting
is an Object, which receives a messages and returns an object'.
 >  In this (Dan's ?) solution, the implementation is late bound and can use
the same lookup algorithm as used for messages .  
 >  The other solutions lack this elegance.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20070919/99013330/attachment.htm


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list