I may be a total beginner, but if you think of it as objects instead of
code: One object sends a message (the sender), the receiving object (the
receiver) dies something if it understands the message, and then gives the
sender a reply. If the message where a void (no reply), the sender would
get st
Top post: I never once thought about that, and it makes me smile.
On Dec 30, 2012, at 7:40 AM, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
> On 2012-12-27, at 01:32, Sebastian Nozzi wrote:
>
>> Why do ST methods return "self" if nothing is explicitly returned?
>
>
> One very simple reason has not been stated y
On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 7:40 AM, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
> On 2012-12-27, at 01:32, Sebastian Nozzi wrote:
>
>> Why do ST methods return "self" if nothing is explicitly returned?
>
>
> One very simple reason has not been stated yet: In the Virtual Machine,
> returning self is simpler and more ef
On 2012-12-27, at 01:32, Sebastian Nozzi wrote:
> Why do ST methods return "self" if nothing is explicitly returned?
One very simple reason has not been stated yet: In the Virtual Machine,
returning self is simpler and more efficient than returning any other object.
Smalltalk byte codes imple
There are more knowledgeable people around here, but here is my take:
On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Sebastian Nozzi wrote:
> Hello Smalltalkers,
>
> I was interacting the other day with an user in a Scala mailing list,
> and he had some questions about Smalltalk. From his FP (functional
> prog
Hello Smalltalkers,
I was interacting the other day with an user in a Scala mailing list,
and he had some questions about Smalltalk. From his FP (functional
programming) point of view there were some things that looked strange.
I tried to reply to the best of my ability, but still I don't really
k
