[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: Paolo Bonzini
Subject: [Help-smalltalk] Re: [RFC] Smalltalk scripting syntax
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 13:59:27 +0100
User-agent: Thunderbird (Macintosh/20070221)

> Sorry, but you've got me confused.  What you've said above is the exact
> opposite of what I understand by "scripting".  Scripting is an
> interpreted dynamic on-the-fly kind of thing.

Scripting is also about lots of libraries that are easy to use and easy
to write.  Which means, having good tools for documentation, cross
referencing, and so on.  Such tools need to understand the structure
the program, they cannot just rely on self-discipline of the library

So yes, for the user that does not need to create many classes, some
small refinement of the bang syntax we all learned to love and hate
is okay.  But this project is *not* about that.  Small refinements of
the bang syntax are easy enough that I hope, will only have consensus
in the mailing list when we get round to the mailing list.

> In fact, I think there shouldn't
> be.  I understand why there's a need for something better than
> #methodsFor:, but the rest is just way out there, more useful for
> compiler writers than language users.

s/compiler/tool/ and we agree.  But without tool writers, there are
no tools for the language users.

>     >>> f = lambda a, b: a + b + c
>     >>> f(3, 4)
>     Traceback (most recent call last):
>       File "<stdin>", line 1, in ?
>       File "<stdin>", line 1, in <lambda>
>     NameError: global name 'c' is not defined
>     >>> c = 5
>     >>> f(3, 4)
>     12
>     >>>
> Note how a reference to an undefined variable is an execution-time
> exception.  That's the direction I'd like to see GNU Smalltalk heading.

For interactive usage, fully agreed.


reply via email to

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