I think it's important to have a consistent answer to the question: "Can you treat symbols as blocks?".
Niko On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Tudor Girba <[email protected]> wrote: > I proposed this some one or two years ago. I got shut down, but I still find > it a good idea. > > And I even have a semantic reason: > - A Block represents a piece of functionality that can be evaluated with some > input > - A Symbol often represents a selector which in turns represents a piece of > functionality that can be evaluated with some input. > > From this point of view, they have similar responsibilities and we should be > able to treat them the same. > > Cheers, > Doru > > > On 30 Aug 2011, at 14:12, [email protected] wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Symbol responds to #value:, but not to #value:value:. >> >> At some point, Symbol and Block were decided to have the invocation protocol >> in common. I find this great. Therefore, I think, Symbol should also respond >> to #value:value:, as follows: >> >> value: anObject value: anotherObject >> ^ anObject perform: self with: anotherObject >> >> Of course, it should also respond to #value:value:value: and >> #value:value:value:value: >> >> Niko >> >> -- >> http://scg.unibe.ch/staff/Schwarz >> twitter.com/nes1983 >> Tel: +41786126354 >> >> > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > > "Speaking louder won't make the point worthier." > > > -- http://scg.unibe.ch/staff/Schwarz twitter.com/nes1983 Tel: +41786126354
