sorry, how do you type unicode characters?
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 1:07 AM p...@highoctane.be
wrote:
> I feel an APL forcefield growing.
>
> Phil
>
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 02:14 Gabriel Cotelli wrote:
>
>> Looks like Christmas season opened early this year :)
>>
>> Jokes aside, I'm in favor of
I feel an APL forcefield growing.
Phil
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 02:14 Gabriel Cotelli wrote:
> Looks like Christmas season opened early this year :)
>
> Jokes aside, I'm in favor of changing some of the characters we use for
> binary selectors to allow it to be used in keyword/unary messages.
>
>
Would use of ? and ! in unary/keyword selectors be convention or somehow
required? If simply convention, then we should start with renaming testing
methods to be named is* or has*.
flag1 := anInteger even.“not good"
flag2 := anInteger isEven. “better"
Looks like Christmas season opened early this year :)
Jokes aside, I'm in favor of changing some of the characters we use for
binary selectors to allow it to be used in keyword/unary messages.
I'll include % in that list. For me its more useful as a way to create
percentages ( 5 % ) than to be us
Yes, it would.
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 10:55 PM Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote:
>
>
> > On 10 Sep 2019, at 22:14, ducasse wrote:
> >
> > Then we have two that could really improve our language
> > ? and !
>
> I never thought about that, but indeed, that would be quite nice.
>
>
>
> On 10 Sep 2019, at 22:14, ducasse wrote:
>
> Then we have two that could really improve our language
> ? and !
I never thought about that, but indeed, that would be quite nice.
I would love to retract ? and ! from the list of binary selectors.
I’m super super frustrated that predicates cannot be easily identifiable.
for example is
lineUpBlockBrackets an action or a testing method.
I think that we are trapped in mistakes from the past.
In racket and scheme an
There is a new Pharo build available!
The status of the build #723 was: FAILURE.
The Pull Request #4548 was integrated:
"4547-CompiledCode-misses-a-subclassResponsibilty-for-methodClass"
Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/4548
Issue Url: https://github.com/pharo-pro
There is a new Pharo build available!
The status of the build #722 was: SUCCESS.
The Pull Request #4546 was integrated:
"4545-fix-callers-of-ObjectlogCr--deprecated"
Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/4546
Issue Url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/issues/454
There is a new Pharo build available!
The status of the build #721 was: SUCCESS.
The Pull Request #4539 was integrated:
"2449-Automatic-rewriting-of-deprecated-code-needs-feedback-to-developers-whose-code-is-changed"
Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/4539
Issue Url
There is a new Pharo build available!
The status of the build #720 was: SUCCESS.
The Pull Request #4543 was integrated: "4542-update-rfEnsure"
Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/4543
Issue Url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/issues/4542
Build Url:
https://ci
Jim,
You’ve done an excellent job of summarizing the issues and providing strong
arguments.
For my part, while consistency is important, simplicity is also important. To
that end, a new syntax would need to bring a lot of value to justify the
additional cognitive load. So unless you can get `^
I desesperately need it.
There is a new Pharo build available!
The status of the build #719 was: FAILURE.
The Pull Request #4538 was integrated: "Fix bug introduced with Spec2
migration."
Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/4538
Issue Url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/issues/4529
B
Thanks Jim we will have to take the time to check.
Now it is also important to understand the usage because adding a new syntax
for 0.01% of the cases is not super
efficient.
We will carefully read your analysis and come back to it.
> On 10 Sep 2019, at 00:13, Jim Sawyer wrote:
>
>
> ---
>
15 matches
Mail list logo
