On Monday 17 December 2007 01:01:10 am Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Also, most languages (Java, Python, Ruby) are doing > whole-class-as-a-block, and the main objective of the new syntax was to > make the language reasonable to people familiar with those languages. I agree; but I still think we should not _enforce_ whole-class-as-a-block like java does. It would seriously limit the freedom in organizing source code. > Yes, that's nice. Unfortunately, I thought of it as well as of permitting > > Person >> new [ > <category: '...'> > ] So loose methods like this are permitted? Come to think of it, there must be a way to define additional methods outside the main class definition block; otherwise one of the main strength (being able to add methods without subclassing) of smalltalk just disappears :) > > at toplevel, but they would not be easy to implement in the current > parser. However, based on you proposal, something I could do pretty > easily is this: > > Object subclass: Person [ > > | name age | > > Person class >> category: 'instance creation' [ > new [ > ... > ] > ... > ] > ] > > What do you think? But this is still whole-class-as-a-block, and it even add another layer of indention. What I really want is being able to break up a large class into multiple files, each one defining one of more categories. > > Paolo
Derek _______________________________________________ help-smalltalk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-smalltalk
