> On 23 Feb 2016, at 13:57, Sven Van Caekenberghe <s...@stfx.eu> wrote: > >> >> On 23 Feb 2016, at 13:43, Tudor Girba <tu...@tudorgirba.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >>> On Feb 23, 2016, at 1:24 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <esteba...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On 23 Feb 2016, at 13:20, Alain Plantec via Pharo-dev >>>> <pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Alain Plantec <alain.plan...@yahoo.com> >>>> 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 <pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hello Doru, >>>> >>>>> On 23 Feb 2016, at 10:33, Tudor Girba <tu...@tudorgirba.com> 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 :) >> >> I think there is a misunderstanding. >> >> The current annotations are there for documentation purposes. Given that >> Alex did an extensive pass to document Bloc, they should remain in place as >> they document the contracts. Documentation like this is something we should >> embrace for such a central piece. >> >> That this also provides the information for a potential optional types >> experiment it’s a different issue, and it would not affect at all the >> implementation of Bloc. > > I understand why it is done in the context of documentation, and I am all for > good documentation. > > But it really is a dangerous road to start on. It sends a weird signal, as if > it is better to start adding static typing information. > > The next step will be that someone suggests to start adding the same kind of > annotation typing information to all arguments, next all instance variable, > it can't hurt right ? Then we write tools to use that information, then we > start requiring it, next we have Java with tons of boiler plate code for > nothing.
+1 > >> Cheers, >> Doru >> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Doru >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Feb 23, 2016, at 10:25 AM, Alain Plantec via Pharo-dev >>>>>> <pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Alain Plantec <alain.plan...@yahoo.com> >>>>>> 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 <pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I don’t like it too. >>>>>> Alain >>>>>> >>>>>>> Le 23 févr. 2016 à 09:50, Nicolai Hess <nicolaih...@gmail.com> a écrit : >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2016-02-23 9:47 GMT+01:00 stepharo <steph...@free.fr>: >>>>>>> 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 interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair, >> you will end up with a messy haircut."
