It’s like saying that we have to run Pharo on JVM because everyone is doing that. In 80s block was invented. Why should we rename it because of some other languages?
Uko On 17 Apr 2014, at 16:35, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.ber...@me.com> wrote: > Well… the whole community of programming language call a closure a closure. > Calling a block what is actually a closure may not be a well-marketed move in > my opinion. > > Alexandre > -- > _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: > Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu > ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. > > > > On Apr 17, 2014, at 10:29 AM, Sebastian Sastre <sebast...@flowingconcept.com> > wrote: > >> On Apr 17, 2014, at 10:08 AM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymc...@me.com> wrote: >> >>> I would rather rename is to Block, as everyone is calling it a “block”. >> >> That might be actually a good idea >> >> sebastian >> >> o/ >> >> PS: thinking in that line there is also ‘Context’ as, conceptually, what >> these blocks of code want to do is to keep the evaluation in a specific >> context. But to ease know-how transference and type less I’d rather go with >> the most popular name, as you suggested: ‘Block' >> >> > >
