Why can't instance variables/slots not be Symbols as well ...
> On 22 May 2017, at 13:27, Gabriel Cotelli <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> If we can get rid off the myriad of class creation methods count me in. :)
>
> I would do something like:
>
> ClassBuilder new
> name: #A;
> superclass: Object;
> addInstanceVariableNamed: 'a';
> addInstanceVariableNamed: 'c';
> addBooleanSlotNamed: 'z';
> addClassVariableNamed: 'D';
> use: SomeTrait;
> use: SomeOtherTrait;
> beWeak "if you want a weak subclass";
> build
>
> With all of this optional. If we can avoid to pass nil as superclass for the
> cases you don't have a superclass that would be good, maybe an specific
> method in the builder ?
>
> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 4:25 AM, Luc Fabresse <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Following Pharo Days, I brainstormed about some possible class definition
> syntaxes.
> What I have in mind:
>
> "basic mechanics, only THIS one in the image!"
> ClassDefinition new
> superclass: Object; "optional. If not specified, Object by default ;-)"
> name: #A; "optional and create an anonymous class if not specified"
> instVars: 'a b c';
> traits: {TEquality};
> package: 'Plop';
> createClass. " this message sent might be hidden by the browser when
> accepting"
>
> "---------------"
> "Some IDEAS (but I did not find one that I really like) of scripting/shorter
> syntaxes that must ALWAYS end up calling the above basic mechanics at the
> end:"
>
> Class fromDefinition: [ :def |
> def name: #sub;
> instVars: 'w r g';
> superclass: Object ].
>
> Object subclass "<-- returns a subclass of Object but the problem is that
> the new class is muted each time and the class definition is not explicit"
> name: #A;
> ivs: 'a b c';
> traits: { TEquality }.
>
> { #superclass -> Object.
> #name -> #sub.
> #instVars -> 'a b c' } asClass.
>
> { Object asSuperclass.
> #sub asClassName.
> 'a b c' asInstVars.
> 'c' asClassVar } asClass.
>
> "litteral approach"
> #( name A
> superclass Object
> instVars #(a b c)
> instVar d
> ) asClass
>
>
> #Luc
>
