I agree, my objection too is how it looks syntax wise. As I said I don't understand pragmas deeply enough to make a decision if I want them removed or not.
Tag wise, well I think a tag should be an IDE and not a language feature. But thats my personal preference. Protocols for me at least is another way to tag things. As I said in the past I would prefer a more elaborate system of tagging for methods and classes similar how Stackoverflow questions work of default and custom tags. On the other hand, people like different things so I never made a big deal out of it. So for now I just tolerate pragmas and they do tolerate me :D On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 5:41 PM, Hernán Morales Durand < hernan.mora...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 2015-02-07 5:59 GMT-03:00 kilon alios <kilon.al...@gmail.com>: > >> Personally I don't like Pragmas, they have not convinced me so far that >> they fit the style of Smalltalk syntax. I have to confess though I never >> liked descriptive elements and languages . >> >> > Me neither. Actually the pragma idea is not wrong per se, it is the tag > syntax to write them which bothers me. Because the world can be described > with tags if you start that path. > There are other ways to add metadata to methods. Without tagging. > And they don't need to be in the method pane itself. > It is like having to specify protocol because there is no list pane to > create them. > > Hernán > >> >> About python decorators I disagree that are similar to pragmas. Pragmas >> are focused on being descriptive , python decorators are descriptive as by >> product. The main focus of python decorators is to shorten code by >> introducing syntactic sugar. >> >> I agree though this is a very interesting discussion and I dont >> understand most of the things stated here so I leave an open door and mind >> for pragmas. Maybe one day I will "get it". >> > > > > > >> >> On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 10:02 AM, Thierry Goubier < >> thierry.goub...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> 2015-02-06 22:00 GMT+01:00 stepharo <steph...@free.fr>: >>> >>>> Really interesting discussion. I like pragmas but this is interesting >>>> to see them challenged. >>>> >>> >>> Thanks. It's a pleasure to discuss that way :) >>> >>> >>>> Yes, but there end up being lots of naming conventions and they are >>>>> non-obvious. Whereas pragmas, because they are in-your-face in the >>>>> methods >>>>> in question, don't need conventions. They just need documenting ;-). >>>>> >>>> Thierry I'm skeptical that multiple protocol will save the problem >>>> because you will rely on coding conventions. >>>> >>> >>> Pragma as well: just explain the conventions behind the gtInspector >>> pragmas, for example. >>> >>> But give me multiple protocols and I'll show you the same conventions >>> rewritten in less lines (and a slightly more efficient code). >>> >>> >>>> And pragma is a clever tagging. >>>> >>> >>> Then maybe we should remove protocols and replace them with pragmas :) >>> >>> Thierry >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Stef >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
