Ok. Then we can have an ordered expression :) A sequence without a declaration is a bit useless.
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Damien Pollet <damien.pol...@gmail.com> wrote: > Surprising that a sequence is not an expression. I'm pretty sure that (1+2. > 2+3) is an expression that returns 5 (after computing a useless addition). > What is currently not an expression is the variable declaration, indeed. But > if we make |d| an expression then that means we can declare variables in the > middle of a sequence… so it would still have the same lifetime, but a > shorter scope ? > > On 30 June 2017 at 11:32, Stephane Ducasse <stepharo.s...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I do not get why (Yes I know it is because it is not in the syntax.... >> but it is conceptually not nice). >> >> | d | >> d := Dictionary new. >> d at: #top at: #below1 put: 1. >> d at: #top at: #below1 put: 2. >> d at: #top at: #below1. >> >> is not an expression in Pharo. >> >> It means that I can manipulate >> >> 1 + 3, >> x + 3 as an expression >> but not a sequence. >> >> So it forces me to use a block to convert artificially a sequence >> in an expression. >> >> [ >> | d | >> d := Dictionary new. >> d at: #top at: #below1 put: 1. >> d at: #top at: #below1 put: 2. >> d at: #top at: #below1. >> ] value >> >> So if I want to build a repl executing expression then this is not a >> Pharo repl but just a stupid expression. >> >> I would like to know what would be impact to have sequence and >> declaration as expression. >> >> Stef >> > > > > -- > Damien Pollet > type less, do more [ | ] http://people.untyped.org/damien.pollet
