[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Help-smalltalk] [RFC] Smalltalk scripting syntax

From: Mike Anderson
Subject: Re: [Help-smalltalk] [RFC] Smalltalk scripting syntax
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 21:54:22 +0000
User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20061025)

Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> I thought you might say that, but there's really no reason why you
>> should insist on defining class instance variables in the class method
>> scope.
> I fail to parse this, sorry.  In fact, the bang syntax for class
> instance variables is
>     Foo class
>         instanceVariableNames: 'uniqueInstance'!
> which is "defined on the class" just like class methods.
> In fact, the 1:1 mapping is *not* between instance and class variables,
> but within instance and class-instance variables.

I don't mind if you don't quote me in full, but chopping paragraphs in
half is bound to lead to confusion.

What I said was that you don't have to follow that mapping, because the
instance scope is not the same kind of scope as the class scope.

To put it another way: you are creating this new syntax. The only rules
that it has to follow are chosen by you. There are no external
constraints. There is no need to conform to a particular pattern if it
makes for a less useful syntax.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]