the historical anecdote could be nice as part of the class documentation.
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 8:59 PM, Alexandre Bergel
wrote:
> Thanks Eliot for the historical anecdote
>
> Alexandre
> --
> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
> Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
> ^~:;._,.
Thanks Eliot for the historical anecdote
Alexandre
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
On Apr 17, 2014, at 1:54 PM, Eliot Miranda wrote:
> Hi Alexandre,
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at
2014-04-17 13:00 GMT-07:00 pharo4s...@free.fr :
>
> On 17/4/14 18:54, Eliot Miranda wrote:
>
>> If it ain't broke don't fix it. The name BlockClosure isn't incorrect.
>> These are blocks implemented as closures. The name MethodContext /is/
>> broken. These /aren't/ just MethodContexts any more
On 17/4/14 18:54, Eliot Miranda wrote:
If it ain't broke don't fix it. The name BlockClosure isn't
incorrect. These are blocks implemented as closures. The name
MethodContext /is/ broken. These /aren't/ just MethodContexts any
more, they are both BlockContexts and MethodContexts, so collap
abergel wrote
Well… the whole community of programming language call a closure a
closure. Calling a block what is actually a closure may not be a
well-marketed move in my opinion.
Given that Smalltalkers consider it a block and outsiders would understand
the closure part, maybe it is well-name
On Apr 17, 2014, at 1:54 PM, Eliot Miranda wrote:
> I don't think this is right. Yesterday Clément and I had lunch with Dan
> Ingalls and we talked about the origin of blocks. At first blocks were not
> even real objects; instead they were just a syntactic construct for delayed
> evaluation.
Hi Alexandre,
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 8:21 AM, Alexandre Bergel
wrote:
> Because what we call a block is actually a closure. Smalltalk-80 invented
> blocks, which were not closures at that time. Over the time we found out
> that Blocks are not really useful, but instead the humanity largely pref
On 17 avr. 2014, at 17:33, Camille Teruel wrote:
>
> One thing that confuses me with these terminologies is that it's hard to know
> when someone speak about the syntactic construct (that you find in source
> code) or about the result of evaluating this construct (that close over an
> actual
+1
sebastian
o/
> On 17/04/2014, at 12:21, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
>
> Because what we call a block is actually a closure. Smalltalk-80 invented
> blocks, which were not closures at that time. Over the time we found out that
> Blocks are not really useful, but instead the humanity largely pr
One thing that confuses me with these terminologies is that it's hard to know
when someone speak about the syntactic construct (that you find in source code)
or about the result of evaluating this construct (that close over an actual
environment).
What I mean is that a block can be evaluated se
2014-04-17 6:57 GMT-07:00 Sebastian Sastre :
>
> On Apr 17, 2014, at 10:35 AM, Alexandre Bergel
> wrote:
>
> the whole community of programming language call a closure a closure.
> Calling a block what is actually a closure
>
>
> javascript is teaching every day to thousands what a real Closure i
Hi,
I just wanted to mention that Apple also added 'Closures' as 'Blocks' to
Objective-C (respectively C):
https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/ProgrammingWithObjectiveC/WorkingwithBlocks/WorkingwithBlocks.html
Best,
Manfred
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Y
Because what we call a block is actually a closure. Smalltalk-80 invented
blocks, which were not closures at that time. Over the time we found out that
Blocks are not really useful, but instead the humanity largely prefer closure.
But ok, this is not a pressing thing. Was just a tough.
Just to
It’s like saying that we have to run Pharo on JVM because everyone is doing
that. In 80s block was invented. Why should we rename it because of some other
languages?
Uko
On 17 Apr 2014, at 16:35, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
> Well… the whole community of programming language call a closure a clos
+1 for BlockClosure :-)
On 17 avr. 2014, at 15:44, Sean P. DeNigris wrote:
> abergel wrote
>> Well… the whole community of programming language call a closure a
>> closure. Calling a block what is actually a closure may not be a
>> well-marketed move in my opinion.
>
> Given that Smalltalkers con
Am 17.04.2014 um 15:57 schrieb Sebastian Sastre :
>
> On Apr 17, 2014, at 10:35 AM, Alexandre Bergel
> wrote:
>
>> the whole community of programming language call a closure a closure.
>> Calling a block what is actually a closure
>
> javascript is teaching every day to thousands what a re
On Apr 17, 2014, at 10:35 AM, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
> the whole community of programming language call a closure a closure. Calling
> a block what is actually a closure
javascript is teaching every day to thousands what a real Closure is every day,
so yeah that would be probably better
abergel wrote
> Well… the whole community of programming language call a closure a
> closure. Calling a block what is actually a closure may not be a
> well-marketed move in my opinion.
Given that Smalltalkers consider it a block and outsiders would understand
the closure part, maybe it is well-na
I usually say “block” but I have nothing against a name change. I think
“closure” would be an intention revealing name, I like it. And I’m willing to
say “closure” from now on :)
On 17.04.2014, at 15:35, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
> Well… the whole community of programming language call a closur
Well… the whole community of programming language call a closure a closure.
Calling a block what is actually a closure may not be a well-marketed move in
my opinion.
Alexandre
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
On Apr 17, 2014, at 10:08 AM, Yuriy Tymchuk wrote:
> I would rather rename is to Block, as everyone is calling it a “block”.
That might be actually a good idea
sebastian
o/
PS: thinking in that line there is also ‘Context’ as, conceptually, what these
blocks of code want to do is to keep th
I would rather rename is to Block, as everyone is calling it a “block”.
Uko
On 17 Apr 2014, at 16:01, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Just wondering, would it not make sense to rename BlockClosure into Closure?
>
> Cheers,
> Alexandre
> --
> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;
Hi!
Just wondering, would it not make sense to rename BlockClosure into Closure?
Cheers,
Alexandre
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
23 matches
Mail list logo
