2016-09-16 18:42 GMT+02:00 Eliot Miranda <eliot.mira...@gmail.com>:

> Hi All,
>
>
>
> _,,,^..^,,,_ (phone)
> > On Sep 14, 2016, at 10:50 PM, Marcus Denker <marcus.den...@inria.fr>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>> We can change it back and maybe add support for the reformatter to not
> convert it to the literal array #(3 #+ 4) .
> >>
> >> I do not know in fact this is why I asked :)
> >> Now may be my idea to use pragma to get something like pythondoctest is
> a bad idea
> >> but I really want to have literal programming.
> >> What do you think?
> > I like the idea to show examples/tests close to code, but pragmas are
> not really good...
> >
> >> If we have ' ' then it would be good that the syntax higlighter works
> with a special mode inside the ' '
> >
> > it is just a string. How do you know that it contains code?
> >
> > Would you highlight all string in all code as if it contained code? Or
> would you add this just for
> > Pragmas? But even there, strings are string, not code.
> >
> > I think we can conclude that pragmas are not a good solution to the
> problem, as they are far
> > too limited to express code.
>
> I think that's not a safe conclusion.  We know from Igor's use of Kieran
> arrays for C signatures in the UFFI, and can easily extrapolate here, that
> arbitrary Smalltalk expressions /can/ be expressed in literal arrays.  S
> expressions work for lisp.
>
> In this particular case special casing pretty printing of literal arrays
> in pragmas would be all that's needed to make the code look beautiful.  Why
> throw the baby out with the bath water?  It would be so easy to make this
> work well.
>

We can try this as well. And it is far more easier to work with this
expressions if they are pragma arguments, than to parse the comment to find
some code within.
On the other hand, it looks much nicer if we have the examples right in the
method doc. you have some text describing the method, some code, some more
text about the reslt.



>
> The only thing I'd do would be to print like this to make it clear that
> the argument t is a literal Array and not some magic form of code:
>
>      <expr: #(3 + 4) result: 7>
>
>
Yes, I would like to change this anyway, even for literal arrays for ffi,
calls like

mouseStateX: x y: y
    <primitive: #primitiveNativeCall module: #NativeBoostPlugin error:
errorCode>
    ^ self nbCall: #( Uint32 SDL_GetMouseState ( int* x , int* y ) )

this will be reformatted to

mouseStateX: x y: y
    <primitive: #primitiveNativeCall module: #NativeBoostPlugin error:
'errorCode'>
    ^ self nbCall: #(#Uint32 #SDL_GetMouseState #(#int #* #x #, #int #* #y))




> >
> >    Marcus
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Reply via email to