> On Feb 23, 2016, at 1:17 PM, stepharo <[email protected]> wrote: > > I do not think that Pharo will become a static language :)
Certainly not a static language! :)) > For the moment we can let it as a documentation. > Now I would prefer to have tests because such annotations may be obsolete. Certainly. They should come. > Anyway the code quality of aleksei is really good. :) Doru > Le 23/2/16 10:33, Tudor Girba a écrit : >> 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? >> >> 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." >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > -- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com "If you can't say why something is relevant, it probably isn't."
