On Wed, 26 May 2010, Lukas Renggli wrote:
not right to me. I wanted to express the feeling that, for me, the one
of the best things about Smalltalk is its readability in difference to
C, which is very fast. The ?new compiler optimize? both, anyway.
- The "New Compiler" does not yet work.
- The optimized #and:and:and: code never decompiled correctly.
- The exact semantics of #and:and:and: is not clear without knowing
how it is implemented.
- There are subtle semantic differences between "a and: [ b ] and: [ c
] and: [ d ]" and "a and: [ b and: [ c and: [ d ] ] ]" if the
conditions have side-effects.
That's not true. Both #and: and #and:and:and: (and friends) are
short-circuit, so they'll cause exactly the same side effects.
Levente
- The #and:and:and: constructs are very confusing to newbies, I have
seen that numerous times.
- The use of #and:and:and: doesn't shorten code.
- #and:and:and: is not necessary from a language point of view.
- And most important for me: #and:and:and: is incompatible with the
rest of the world.
Lukas
--
Lukas Renggli
www.lukas-renggli.ch
_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
