Arrays / collections with literal syntax - fixed size?
itsme213
itsme213 at hotmail.com
Sun Jan 6 19:31:13 UTC 2008
"nice" <ncellier at ifrance.com> wrote
> It's the fact that #(..) is a literal.
> And modifying a literal is a bad practice, whatever the language.
>
> However, { } is NOT a literal.
This seems like a reasonable argument for {...} to be a resizable
collection, while [...] is not.
A related minor question: why does
#(a b c)
print as
#(#a #b #c)
If it is a literal the first seems a more minimal default.
Such syntax questions seem out of place in Smalltalk's minimalist
philosophy. If they are not appropriate to this list, I apologize. I am
relatively new to Squeak/ST (played on its periphery in the past) and know
much of this is frozen, but to me a combination of some of:
+ ST keyword-message
+ some Ruby syntax conveniences ([],+,optional self...)
+ some form of namespaces (language or tool)
+ ST image and MC based development
would help light-weight DSL-ish usage a lot. Simply contrast:
PWDisk on:
(self data: theData
footer: (OrderedCollection with: 1 with: 2))
vs.
disk on: (data: theData footer: [1 2])
- Sophie
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|