Re: [Pharo-users] Namespaces (was Re: Behold Pharo: The Modern Smalltalk)

amespace support or other. Bye T. > Gesendet: Montag, 23. Dezember 2019 um 01:18 Uhr > Von: "Esteban Maringolo" > An: "Any question about pharo is welcome" > Betreff: Re: [Pharo-users] Namespaces (was Re: Behold Pharo: The Modern > Smalltalk) > >

Re: [Pharo-users] Namespaces (was Re: Behold Pharo: The Modern Smalltalk)

On 23 December 2019 at 01.31.00, Ronie Salgado (ronies...@gmail.com) wrote: P.S: A bigger problem that I remember from that ESUG discussion is having namespaced/modularized selectors and extension methods. :) Was there ever any reasonable solution/proposal to that issue ? Best, Kasper

Re: [Pharo-users] Namespaces (was Re: Behold Pharo: The Modern Smalltalk)

I do not like the idea of using a dot in class names because dot is already used to separate expressions in a sequence. I am pretty sure that using dot may introduce several ambiguities in the parsing process. For example, the following with the current parser will produce the same AST:

Re: [Pharo-users] Namespaces (was Re: Behold Pharo: The Modern Smalltalk)

There are two uses for namespacing: 1. Avoiding class name collisions between different packages 2. Modularization I don't have the use cases for 2, but Torsten had an idea to support the dot in the class name, that'd solve the problem 1. (e.g. Chronology.Date and YourPackage.Date). Esteban A.

Re: [Pharo-users] Namespaces (was Re: Behold Pharo: The Modern Smalltalk)

What is the modern state of namespaces support? Maybe in Pharo 8 (or 9) I'm going to model some generic async Smalltalk in Pharo, package-bounded namespaces can save me from prefixing every class name. -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html

Re: [Pharo-users] Namespaces (was Re: Behold Pharo: The Modern Smalltalk)

Thanks for the reply and for your explanation and Pharo's position on this idea and on the subject of namespaces and modules. I was simply offering a solution that was presented at Smalltalks conference. My use of Pharo is in the small. I do not in general see or know the problems associated

Re: [Pharo-users] Namespaces (was Re: Behold Pharo: The Modern Smalltalk)

For the record at ESUG at Prague there was a really interesting discussion about namespace and some people working with newspeak mentioned that the namesapce there was a hell. And I trust these people. So good luck. For the record we are working and we are making progress on module system for

Re: [Pharo-users] Namespaces (was Re: Behold Pharo: The Modern Smalltalk)

Absolutely. I have contemplated giving it a try. But when I go look at the mailing list, it looks like such a lonely place. I still might give it a go. It looks interesting. Jimmie On 10/19/2017 05:20 PM, Ben Coman wrote: btw, are you aware that Newspeak is developed on top of the CogVM that

Re: [Pharo-users] Namespaces (was Re: Behold Pharo: The Modern Smalltalk)

I watched this video a year ago and was intrigued. I have not thought about it deeply and do not know consequences of this model. However, Gilad is a smart man who has thought deeply about these things and has experienced consequences as a language designer. But it does sound interesting and I

Re: [Pharo-users] Namespaces (was Re: Behold Pharo: The Modern Smalltalk)

You're mixing modularization, namespacing, packaging and parametrization. If we're speaking about modules/namespaces I rather call them as such, not Pink Elephant. Having an agreement on the terms semantic is important for any communication. To me a module is not a factorization for the

Re: [Pharo-users] Namespaces (was Re: Behold Pharo: The Modern Smalltalk)

Modularisation is coming whether you like it or not its called Bootstrap And the more modular the image will get the more will get closer to namespaces anyway. So frankly all I have to do is wait and if I can of course contribute ;) You can call it Bootstrap or the Pink Elephant for all I care,

Re: [Pharo-users] Namespaces (was Re: Behold Pharo: The Modern Smalltalk)

2017-10-13 5:55 GMT-03:00 Norbert Hartl : > >> Am 13.10.2017 um 10:24 schrieb stephan : >> >> On 13-10-17 09:55, Thierry Goubier wrote: >>> Because namespaces, by essence, come with serious issues. I won't take >>> someone seriously on namespaces until he can

Re: [Pharo-users] Namespaces (was Re: Behold Pharo: The Modern Smalltalk)

I am against the very idea of special syntax. Even python uses special syntax as nothing more than syntactic sugar to make the code more readable from the point of view of not everything looking the same. I agree with the concept of everything being an Object. I also dont like the idea that we

Re: [Pharo-users] Namespaces (was Re: Behold Pharo: The Modern Smalltalk)

Hi Kilon, then the discussion is a bit different. As your example points out, the syntax is already there, but the notion of a module is still open and ties into the package management. I've played a bit with Metacello to have a working "project" concept synchronized with Metacello, and I could

Re: [Pharo-users] Namespaces (was Re: Behold Pharo: The Modern Smalltalk)

to be more specific what I mean because apparently I may know nothing about namespaces , I was talking in terms of Python's module and package system even though python uses special syntax "import" to import a module, a source file, the real functionality is actually a method but of an object

Re: [Pharo-users] Namespaces (was Re: Behold Pharo: The Modern Smalltalk)

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 11:31 AM Thierry Goubier wrote: > 2017-10-13 10:12 GMT+02:00 Dimitris Chloupis : > >> fair enough you think namespaces are not the right solution, what you >> think is the right solution then ? >> > > I told you.

Re: [Pharo-users] Namespaces (was Re: Behold Pharo: The Modern Smalltalk)

"Let's start with the misconception that namespaces are about modularisation Stephan " Well I can only for speak for Python because is where I used namespaces the most and the language I am most experienced with. Namespaces in python are merely objects that come with a collection of method

Re: [Pharo-users] Namespaces (was Re: Behold Pharo: The Modern Smalltalk)

> Am 13.10.2017 um 10:24 schrieb stephan : > > On 13-10-17 09:55, Thierry Goubier wrote: >> Because namespaces, by essence, come with serious issues. I won't take >> someone seriously on namespaces until he can cite those faithfully. > > Let's start with the misconception that

Re: [Pharo-users] Namespaces (was Re: Behold Pharo: The Modern Smalltalk)

2017-10-13 10:12 GMT+02:00 Dimitris Chloupis : > fair enough you think namespaces are not the right solution, what you > think is the right solution then ? > I told you. Namespaces are a solution, but they come with issues. > > As much I hate C++ , no I will have to

Re: [Pharo-users] Namespaces (was Re: Behold Pharo: The Modern Smalltalk)

On 13-10-17 09:55, Thierry Goubier wrote: Because namespaces, by essence, come with serious issues. I won't take someone seriously on namespaces until he can cite those faithfully. Let's start with the misconception that namespaces are about modularisation Stephan

Re: [Pharo-users] Namespaces (was Re: Behold Pharo: The Modern Smalltalk)

Hi Kilon, disclaimer: I've used Parcplace Smalltlk without namespaces, then VisualWorks with namespaces. 2017-10-13 9:08 GMT+02:00 Dimitris Chloupis : > Personally I dont get it, we find the path to bootstrap the pharo image > clear and we cannot see the path to

Re: [Pharo-users] Namespaces (was Re: Behold Pharo: The Modern Smalltalk)

Personally I dont get it, we find the path to bootstrap the pharo image clear and we cannot see the path to namespaces ? it makes zero sense to me Plus what you say, countless and countless of implementation of namespaces out there. And again what you say about perfection. If C++ can improve,