[ANSI-Smalltalk] A list of interesting methods, not present in the ANSI standard

[Andres Valloud]

This might bring up the topic of splitting up the current ANSI standard to
conform to this approach... for example, should Object>>performMessage: be
adopted, it seems to me that it would be onerous to have a STEP just for
that method while the ANSI standard has the rest of the perform* messages...

Andres.

On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Craig Latta <craig at netjam.org> wrote:

>
> Hi all--
>
>  > In general, I wonder if big lists of proposed selectors are a good
>  > starting point.  They seem to be an expression of a solution (or part
>  > of one, or of more than one) without saying what they are trying to
>  > solve.
>
>       I agree, and I think this goes back to why "Smalltalk Standards"
> (plural) is apt. I'd like to see a standard which defines what every
> Smalltalk system absolutely must do (and is as small as possible), and a
> set of other standards that define how a system will do other things,
> should its authors decide to do them at all. It seems like the STEP
> system lends itself to this quite well. I imagine that actual systems
> will probably mirror the structure of the standards in the modules that
> implement them, and people will appreciate that.
>
>
>      thanks,
>
> -C
>
> --
> Craig Latta
> improvisational musical informaticist
> www.netjam.org
> Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20080319/4ac9bc1a/attachment.htm