Example A-SIGNATURES Re: A Way to express Standard multi-argument Method Signatures in Smalltalk Re: [ANSI-Smalltalk] Next STEPs

[Eliot Miranda]

To be even more blunt I think the standards process would be damaged if it
is used as a way to introduce experimental extensions into the language.  I
can imagine that attemting to standardise method pragmas would be
contentious enough given that theyre supported by only three dialects to my
knowledge, and then in different ways, even though they're of proven use.
But attempting to standardize something that isn't in the base of any
dialect is going to cause discord.  IMO, the time to standardise some new
feature is when it is well understood, has proven its utility in practice
and has a functional supporting ecology (tools etc).  A-SIGNATURES doesn't
meet any of these criteria.

2¢

On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 1:42 AM, Bruce Badger <bwbadger at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 11/03/2008, Panu Logic <panulogic at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >  As an example of  what I call "A-SIGNATURES",  let me propose (as an
> > example)
> >  that the following type-signatures should be part of the Smalltalk
> > Standard:
> >
> >  Message -> #=                           ->  Object    ->  Object.
>
> Sorry, perhaps I missed something but ... where would these
> "A-SIGNATURES" appear and what problem are they trying to solve?
>
> Thanks,
>    Bruce
> --
> Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills
> http://www.openskills.org/
>
> _______________________________________________
> ANSI-Smalltalk mailing list
> ANSI-Smalltalk at lists.openskills.org
> http://lists.openskills.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ansi-smalltalk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.openskills.org/pipermail/ansi-smalltalk/attachments/20080312/7d40b768/attachment.htm