Same question with cull:
2011/8/30 Niko Schwarz <[email protected]>:
> It's a question of consistency. Why support value:, but not value:value:?
>
> Niko
>
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 7:45 PM, Igor Stasenko <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 30 August 2011 18:02, Douglas Brebner <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>> On 30/08/2011 13:30, Tudor Girba 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.
>>>
>>> I seem to recall there was discussion some time ago about splitting Selector
>>> functionality from Symbol. After all, there's no real reason that a selector
>>> has to be a Symbol.
>>>
>>
>> Selector is just a role to identify a method in method's dictionary.
>> It can be any object: if you look how VM does a lookup
>> there's nothing which limits a selectors to be the instances of Symbol
>> (perhaps the only thing is printing a stack trace ;).
>>
>> What i mean that any object may be a selector:
>>
>> MyClass methodDict at: 1 put: someMethod.
>>
>> MyClass new perform: 1
>>
>> should work.
>>
>> So, i don't see what you can gain by splitting functionality of
>> Selector from Symbol. Then you should put all selector-related
>> protocol to Object class.
>> And this even worse idea :)
>>
>>
>>> Also, some of the examples in this thread seem to be about terseness for
>>> terseness sake.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah. I have same impression.
>> But its cool :)
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> http://scg.unibe.ch/staff/Schwarz
> twitter.com/nes1983
> Tel: +41786126354
>
>
