Paolo, First of all, thanks for reviewing my code and commenting. I will change the message names. I used cascade so that it makes the code shorter. I used code blocks because of by background in FP. We can have messages that take objects. Most users of 0MQ are C/C++/Java programmers and these terse samples may prompt them to have a serious look at Smalltalk. As the project makes further progress, I will add samples that demonstrate real-world use. (Of course, those will be elegant than their C/C++/Java counterparts).
-- Vijay On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]> wrote: > On 03/29/2011 05:30 AM, Vijay Mathew wrote: >> >> Checked in a few samples: >> https://github.com/vijaymathew/gst_zmq/tree/master/samples > > Nice! > > Just a couple of comments on the API. You may want to rename > #while:receiveSend: with #whileTrue:receiveSend: (or #whileTrue:respond:, > but I'm focusing on the first keyword mostly) and add a corresponding > #whileFalse: handler. > > In general, it seems like you're favoring a programming style with many > cascades and blocks to handle code snippets that would have a different > receiver. It looks nice in your examples but (as a complete newbie in 0MQ) > would it scale to real-world cases? > > Thanks for your work, > > Paolo > > ps: I noticed now your email addresses, and that explains your love for > blocks ;) > _______________________________________________ help-smalltalk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-smalltalk
