Thanks for the response. I don't have a "real" argument – I wanted to point out my bewilderment:
Why is #value:value: and the like in the ansi protocol, when #valueWithArguments: would be enough in any case? Of cause the answer is semantically clarity, readability, expressiveness and convenience. Doing something because it is "optimized by the compiler" instead of choosing a less optimized, but clearer and more expressive way seems not right to me. I wanted to express the feeling that, for me, the one of the best things about Smalltalk is its readability in difference to C, which is very fast. The »new compiler optimize« both, anyway. On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected]> wrote: > hi richard > >> WTF?! > > If you have a real argument we are really open to discussion. > >> These are the only reasons? > I think that they are sufficient but again we are not saying that we know > everything and that any solutions could not > be rollback. We are doing and learning. > Now having clean, lean and fast core classes are important. > > Because we could have and:or: or:and: and:and:or: and a couple of others in > that case. > >> Why do we have #value:value:value: then? > > Because this is part of block protocol in the ANSI and because you cannot do > it > only with value: > > >>> - and: is optimized by the compiler >> We could use C, where "everything" is optimized by the compiler. > > I think that your point is out of scope but if you want you can use C. > > Stef > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
