> On 23 Feb 2016, at 13:20, 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: 23 February 2016 at 13:19:34 GMT+1 > To: Pharo Development List <[email protected]> > > > Hello Doru, > >> On 23 Feb 2016, at 10:33, Tudor Girba <[email protected] >> <mailto:[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
please, please, please keep the scope of those experiments aside the main effort who is to have Block/Brick running as soon as possible. Esteban ps: … optional types… at the end, we will realise Gilad was right all this time :) > > >> >> 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] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >>> >>> >>> I don’t like it too. >>> Alain >>> >>>> Le 23 févr. 2016 à 09:50, Nicolai Hess <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit : >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2016-02-23 9:47 GMT+01:00 stepharo <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[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." > > >
