On 6/18/05, Juerd wrote: > Why exactly is the slash not acceptable for you? Almost everyone has > said they like it. I personally find ./method prettier and easier to > type than any of the alternatives.
I don't like it because I think method calls should look like method calls, and the slash separating the dot and name makes it look like something else entirely. On 6/19/05, Juerd wrote: > David Storrs skribis 2005-06-19 13:45 (-0400): > > All that said, I still agree with John... './' does not look like > > method call syntax to me. > > That's good, because it's different from all other method syntax anyway, > because it does not have any left hand side -- not even implied. I don't think it's good. A method call should look like a method call. Frankly, I don't understand the objection to using a keyword for $?SELF, such as `self`. Most other object-oriented languages use such a keyword, if not exactly the same one, so it will be a familiar concept. Certainly more readily understood for a newcomer than `./method`. As a bonus, `self` is easily searchable within the documentation, whereas `./` is not. The argument that this keyword cannot then be defined by user code is weak, as it would be rather hostile to use `self` for any other meaning inside of a class. I presume it could be overridden anyway, as with the other core built-ins, so it is not even an eternal loss, should the need actually arise. I missed responding to the thread the last time this subject came up, but the more I see this syntax the less I like it, so I wanted to add another voice to the dissention. However, if it remains official, I expect I'll simply be naming my invocants, as chromatic has suggested. Kurt
