Thanks, Lucas! I like nice clear concise lists of logical reasons like this :-)
Not that I disagree with Stef in any way at all, but can you think of reasons - other than the historical ones - why #value:value:value: and friends are to be preferred over #valueWithArguments: ? -- Cheers, Peter On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Lukas Renggli <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. > > - The "New Compiler" does not yet work. > > - The optimized #and:and:and: code never decompiled correctly. > > - The exact semantics of #and:and:and: is not clear without knowing > how it is implemented. > > - There are subtle semantic differences between "a and: [ b ] and: [ c > ] and: [ d ]" and "a and: [ b and: [ c and: [ d ] ] ]" if the > conditions have side-effects. > > - The #and:and:and: constructs are very confusing to newbies, I have > seen that numerous times. > > - The use of #and:and:and: doesn't shorten code. > > - #and:and:and: is not necessary from a language point of view. > > - And most important for me: #and:and:and: is incompatible with the > rest of the world. > > Lukas > > -- > Lukas Renggli > www.lukas-renggli.ch > > _______________________________________________ > 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
