2016-02-23 18:03 GMT+01:00 Eliot Miranda <[email protected]>:
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 12:47 AM, stepharo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Given the current semantics of pragmas only <return: #Point> is valid.
>
Well, yes...
In fact, Opal compiles <return: Point> as <return: #Point>. It does not
change the semantics.
I think the real question is: "Do we allow, in the specific case of pragma,
symbols to by written without the # ?"
We already allow "[ nil ]" to be written as "[ ]", and the "^self" at the
end of each method to be omitted. We could have more specific cases so it
won't be too trivial for unaware people to understand the semantics.
We can already see that the syntax colorer is not aware of this specific
case, so it colors Point in <return: Point> as a Literal Variable instead
of a symbol, which leaded many people here to confusion.
*About renaming...*
When renaming a class, it checks all the symbol references too, so,
assuming you have a class Banana and the following code:
Coconut >> getSomething
<return: Banana>
<return: #Banana>
Banana new.
^ #Banana
When we rename the class Banana to Cauliflower, the method is automatically
changed to:
Coconut >> getSomething
<return: #Cauliflower>
<return: #Cauliflower>
Cauliflower new.
^ #Cauliflower
Again, in this case, as for syntax coloring, the system is not aware that
it should rename <return: Banana> to <return: Cauliflower> and not <return:
#Cauliflower>, so as it uses standard symbol terminology
> _,,,^..^,,,_
> best, Eliot
>
