Re: [Pharo-users] How do Smalltalk disambiguate messages?

Oops, that should be.. | array lookupClosure performClosure | lookupClosure := []. lookupClosure := [:cls :selector | (cls == nil) ifTrue: [Warning signal: ('method lookup failure: ', selector)]. cls methodDictionary at: selector

Re: [Pharo-users] How do Smalltalk disambiguate messages?

and a little block cleanup: | array lookupClosure performClosure | lookupClosure := []. lookupClosure := [:cls :selector | (cls == nil) ifTrue: [Warning signal: ('method lookup failure: ', selector)]. cls methodDictionary at: selector

Re: [Pharo-users] How do Smalltalk disambiguate messages?

Here's a little change to get your #perform:withArguments: implemented. | array lookupClosure method | array := { 1 }. lookupClosure := []. lookupClosure := [:cls :selector | (cls == nil) ifTrue: [Warning signal: ('method lookup failure: ', selector)]. cls methodDictionary

Re: [Pharo-users] How do Smalltalk disambiguate messages?

On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Charlie Robbats wrote: > Here, Dmitry, try this code in playground...maybe helps you understand > > | lookupClosure | > lookupClosure := []. > lookupClosure := [:cls :selector | > (cls == nil) > ifTrue: [Warning signal:

Re: [Pharo-users] How do Smalltalk disambiguate messages?

Here, Dmitry, try this code in playground...maybe helps you understand | lookupClosure | lookupClosure := []. lookupClosure := [:cls :selector | (cls == nil) ifTrue: [Warning signal: ('selector lookup failure: ', selector)]. (cls methodDictionary at: selector

Re: [Pharo-users] How do Smalltalk disambiguate messages?

On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Nicolai Hess wrote: > Am 16.10.2016 14:35 schrieb "CodeDmitry" : >> >> I define Magic as "An opaque abstraction or an abstraction you think is >> opaque until you learn better.", to a beginner, everything is deeply >>

Re: [Pharo-users] How do Smalltalk disambiguate messages?

On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 12:44 PM, CodeDmitry wrote: > I understand that it is a single message send, but to know how to handle the > message at runtime, the parser needs to somehow determine where the > implementation of that message is. It must do a lookup based on

Re: [Pharo-users] How do Smalltalk disambiguate messages?

I define Magic as "An opaque abstraction or an abstraction you think is opaque until you learn better.", to a beginner, everything is deeply Magical. That said, much of Smalltalk's opaqueness is not due to the language, but due to me being a beginner. I'm sure there's a way to actually force

Re: [Pharo-users] How do Smalltalk disambiguate messages?

Hi, > On Oct 16, 2016, at 10:41 AM, CodeDmitry wrote: > > I was actually curious about this in Ruby as well, since Ruby also doesn't > have the Smalltalk message syntax. > > I figure that the magic behind it is that Smalltalk takes strings like "dict > at: 'foo' put:

Re: [Pharo-users] How do Smalltalk disambiguate messages?

"Messages are very hard to implement if not impossible because they required that calls don't exist or be disabled, otherwise the existence of message is pointless. And since no language I am aware of allow you to disable calls and replace them with messages , what you trying to do is pointless ."

Re: [Pharo-users] How do Smalltalk disambiguate messages?

Still you don't understand how Ruby syntax works. Every method call every function you see is basically a masquerade message sent. Those calls are just syntactic sugar, they don't exist, they are there to make people to feel more comfortable giving them the illusion that is a call because it looks

Re: [Pharo-users] How do Smalltalk disambiguate messages?

I tried so hard to find an example of Ruby using smalltalk message syntax. You can do something like: class Dictionary attr_accessor :dict def initialize() @dict = {} end def at(*args) if (args.length == 1) then return @dict[args[0]]

Re: [Pharo-users] How do Smalltalk disambiguate messages?

"I was actually curious about this in Ruby as well, since Ruby also doesn't have the Smalltalk message syntax. " Actually, it does when i said in my reply "The only other languages that have such an implementation are ObjC and Ruby which borrow this directly from Smalltalk." What I mean is

Re: [Pharo-users] How do Smalltalk disambiguate messages?

So "at: x put: y" translates to a method named #at:put:(or "at:put:")? |dict| dict := Dictionary new. dict at: 'foo' put: 'bar'. So javascript equivalent would be(assuming the Dictionary object existed). var dict; dict = new Dictionary; dict['at:put:']('foo', 'bar'); -- View this message in

Re: [Pharo-users] How do Smalltalk disambiguate messages?

I think the nub of your confusion is twofold. The method #at:put: is a keyword method and it isn't right to think o them as two keys. It is one compound key and unlike most every other system, Smalltalk keyword message sends allow the programmer to name each argument. This is very fine indeed.

Re: [Pharo-users] How do Smalltalk disambiguate messages?

I understand that it is a single message send, but to know how to handle the message at runtime, the parser needs to somehow determine where the implementation of that message is. It must do a lookup based on multiple keys(at, and put), which is really confusing. "methods" are easy to look up

Re: [Pharo-users] How do Smalltalk disambiguate messages?

The message is "at:put:". It's a single message send. I encourage you to try the ProfStef tutorial to understand the basis. On Oct 16, 2016 01:17, "CodeDmitry" wrote: > I am trying to do a JavaScript experiment to make Objects behave like > Smalltalk objects. > >