Re: [Help-smalltalk] Re: Directions for GNU Smalltalk (was Re: [RFC] Smalltalk scripting syntax)

[Paolo Bonzini]

> I've written some stuff about this below, I hope that'll make it clear.
> 
> I do not necessarily advocate the actions that take place under the hood
> when, say, an exclamation point is encountered by the parser.  As far as
> I'm concerned, due to Smalltalk's free-form syntax, statements need to
> be terminated.  A period would be perfectly fine for that as well.  To
> put it simple I am "against" the proposed modifications and not
> necessarily "for" the current situation.

So you would be in favor of something like

    Object subclass: #Boolean.
    Boolean instanceVariableNames: 'blah blah'.
    Boolean poolDictionaries: 'ImportSomeNamespace'.

    Boolean methods [
        isIdentity [ <category: 'testing'> ^true ]
        isImmediate [ <category: 'testing'> ^true ]
    ].

etc.?  I'm pretty sure something like this will be available "for
free" once GNU Smalltalk's new syntax is available.

So, personally I'm in favor of a more definite notion of scoping,
like

    Object subclass: #Boolean [
        | blah blah |
        <import: ImportSomeNamespace>

        isIdentity [ <category: 'testing'> ^true ]
        isImmediate [ <category: 'testing'> ^true ]
    ]

but I think both camps can be accomodated.  Then, time can
tell not really "who was right", but more "whose proposal
has been more successful".


>> As far as scripting, your suggestions will not be implemented immediately
>> due to lack of time, but they are a prerequisite for the next release.
> 
> Heh.  I do not expect anyone to immediately jump in on implementing them
> and I'm entirely aware that they might not ever get implemented.  No
> problem there.

I meant to say that you *can* expect them to be implemented. ;-)
In fact, I consider your contribution to this thread to have been
extremely useful and constructive.

Paolo