--- Begin Message ---
Hello Doru,
> On 23 Feb 2016, at 10:33, 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?
Experimenting optional types is a good idea. We could have Tools to dynamically
check them.
What about a separate typing model that could be used to add/remove the types
annotations ?
Also, I wonder if Bloc is the good package to experiment optional types. Maybe
it is not stable enough.
Cheers
Alain
>
> Cheers,
> Doru
>
>
>> On Feb 23, 2016, at 10:25 AM, Alain Plantec via Pharo-dev
>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> From: Alain Plantec <[email protected]
>> <mailto:[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 <http://www.tudorgirba.com/>
> www.feenk.com <http://www.feenk.com/>
>
> "We are all great at making mistakes."
--- End Message ---
