> I did not see any discussion of the alternative I proposed, see the
> details here:
> http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A--RFC--Smalltalk-scripting-syntax-p9406679.html
Uh, I thought I had answered that.
I don't like it because, ironically, I like ''' very much.
But while you propose adding a useful syntax element, at the
same time you make it inaccessible to the methods themselves
(no, escaping is not a solution).
> Note also that this approach opens up the system for alternative
> syntaxes. Such as:
That's a property of ''' in general, not tied to your proposal.
With pragmas you could write a method like:
unsafeFastAdd: y
<cCode: '''
printf("unsafeFastAdd called\n");
// the following code may crash the VM
// if the arguments are not small integers
// no testing is done for performance reasons
// which is probably really not very wise in the long term.
// But if you can't crash it, you're not doing the driving. :-)
return int_to_st(st_to_int(x) + st_to_int(y));
}
''' safetyLevel: #mayCrashVM>
Paolo
_______________________________________________
help-smalltalk mailing list
help-smalltalk@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-smalltalk
