Stef,
Very true, #on:do: is not syntax, BUT, it looks that way to the casual
observer, which might be the point of the question. If I decide that it really
should be #on:DO:, I can make that addition in seconds. {} involves changing
the compiler, right? Yes, it can be done, but it requires more than just
taking advantage of message passing.
James, am I helping at all?
Bill
________________________________________
From: [email protected]
[[email protected]] On Behalf Of Stéphane Ducasse
[[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 4:28 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] New features ...
On Dec 23, 2010, at 10:08 PM, James Ladd wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> From what I understand of Smalltalk new language constructs can be added as
> long as they
> fit in with the "message passing" scheme/principle.
>
> Since the release of Smalltalk-80 I think some new constructs have been added
> and I need an
> example for a piece I am writing.
>
> Can someone tell me what syntactical construct was added since Blue Book -
> Smalltalk-80 ?
>
> I think "on:do:" was, but Im not sure.
not on:do:
this is just exception handling and this does not change the syntax
{ } did.
Stef
>
> Rgs, James.
