On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:33 PM, Tudor Girba <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > At the moment, it is used for documentation purposes in Bloc. It is part of > the effort of Alex to document Bloc thoroughly. I think it is an interesting > idea, in that we would have a significant case study for that can be used > later as optional types information to improve static tool support. And it > does not hurt at the moment. > > What do you think?
I have often wonder what a system would be like if you *only* typed the return values of selectors, defined globally so each selector has just *one* return type (but it wouldn't a particular object, more a method-set-fingerprint, you might be able to statically check that the each message in a chain would be understood - but I never think deep enough on it to understand the benefit/cost of it. cheers -ben > > Cheers, > Doru > > >> On Feb 23, 2016, at 10:25 AM, Alain Plantec via Pharo-dev >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> From: Alain Plantec <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] [Bloc] Do we want <return: #Point> or <return: >> Point> >> Date: February 23, 2016 at 10:23:33 AM GMT+1 >> To: Pharo Development List <[email protected]> >> >> >> I don’t like it too. >> Alain >> >>> Le 23 févr. 2016 à 09:50, Nicolai Hess <[email protected]> a écrit : >>> >>> >>> >>> 2016-02-23 9:47 GMT+01:00 stepharo <[email protected]>: >>> Hi >>> >>> I saw that something <return: #Point> or <return: Point> >>> I do not know why but I have the impression that <return: #Point> is better. >>> Because we may have code not present and still want to load the code. >>> >>> I would like to know for what this is used. >>> I don't like it. >>> >>> >>> Stef >>> >>> >> >> >> > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > www.feenk.com > > "We are all great at making mistakes." > > > > > > > > >
