[squeak-dev] Compiling {} statically?
Bert Freudenberg
bert at freudenbergs.de
Tue Nov 24 10:51:03 UTC 2009
On 24.11.2009, at 10:51, Andreas Raab wrote:
>
> Hi -
>
> Here is a question: Does anyone know how much effort it would be to compile the brace array construct down to a literal array if it only contains static elements? This would allow us to use {} consistently even in places where we'd otherwise use #(). I'm not sure if it's worth it but I dislike the asymmetry in literal arrays that symbols aren't prefixed by #symbol and if we'd be able to compile {} statically where that's possible we could completely and consistently replace all uses of #() by {}.
>
> Thoughts?
Well you can actually #symbol notation in #() too. It's just optional.
OTOH I have seen newbies use {} exclusively, apparently unaware of #(). It's an odd construct for sure. Just too convenient to kick out.
But I don't think changing the semantics of {} is a good idea. It is just syntactic sugar for array construction at runtime. Or would you suggest to compile "Array with: 42" statically too? ;)
- Bert -
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|