On 24 April 2012 14:17, Herby Vojčík <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Igor Stasenko wrote: >> >> On 24 April 2012 11:54, Dale Henrichs<[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Stef, >>> >>> There is no Parser class and there is no Compiler class. There is a >>> primitive call that takes method source, class, methodDictionary, etc. and >>> produces a method installed in the methodDictionary. >>> >> so you can take 1st literal from such method and you done. or you >> cannot access method's literals? >> it of course not as simple as parsing the source, but if you cannot >> avoid compilation.. >> >>> ... JSON is and was a pragmatic choice... >>> >> well, i did not realized that GemStone have no own parser/compiler >> written in smalltalk. > > > Neither does Amber in deploy mode, unless I am mistaken. > > Why do you ever think there must be a Smalltalk parser in any Smalltalk? You > get used to it, I understand, but it is by no means a required thing. > Smalltalk is Smalltalk without parser as well. > > JSON is great choice. Much better than anything proprietary, because of > world-wide interoperability. >
Sorry, but you seem even more out of the context than me. We're talking about tools for storing and loading smalltalk code.. which implies having a working smalltalk parser and compiler toolchain. How else you can load smalltalk source code without having the way to parse it? If you don't parse nor compile it, it is just a bunch of letters. > Herby > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
