[ANSI-Smalltalk] re: array creation syntax (was: expressing method signatures)

[Eliot Miranda]

On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 1:44 PM, Andres Valloud <andres.valloud at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I think something that is being left unaddressed is whether using literal
> arrays that allow code expressions (e.g.: the brace syntax in Squeak) is a
> good practice or not.  In my experience, I have not felt the need for such
> things, but maybe I have not been exposed to particular circumstances in
> which they become useful.  Does anybody have some slam dunk examples that
> can be shared so that we can evaluate this better?


Just open any recent Squeak image and broseer senders of #braceArray, e.g.
the last line of
Bezier2Segment>>makeEllipseSegments: aRectangle in Squeak V3.9 reads

    ^{seg1a. seg1b. seg2a. seg2b. seg3a. seg3b. seg4a. seg4b}

instead of
    ^(Array with: seg1a with: seg1b with: seg2a with: seg2b),
      (Array with: seg3a with: seg3b with: seg4a with: seg4b)

BTW, the first example tat comes up in my image contains:
    {'zip'.'sar'.'pr'. 'mcz'. '*'} includes: suffix
which is better written as
    #('zip' 'sar' 'pr' 'mcz' '*') includes: suffix
so one can argue that it can be confusing for some to have two apparently
similar constructs.  But in my experience {} carries its weight (and there's
no doubt that #() does).


>
> Andres.
>
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 9:57 AM, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Craig Latta <craig at netjam.org> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >  > Defining new language elements is hard.  The worst that could
> > > happen
> > >  > to this project, is to have extremely long threads with no
> > > conclusion
> > >  > as on the Squeak list.
> > >
> > >      Indeed, although for what it's worth there's no lingering debate
> > > there on this particular issue[1]. ;)
> > >
> > >
> > > -C
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> > >      Namely, the short form of...
> > >
> > >      Array with: #foo with: #bar
> > >
> > > is...
> > >
> > >      #(foo bar)
> > >
> > > as in Smalltalk-80, and the short form of...
> > >
> > >      Array with: #foo with: true
> > >
> > > is...
> > >
> > >      {#foo. true}
> >
> >
> > Well, in Squeak 3.9 I get
> >
> > Welcome to the finale version of 3.9 of 7 of November 2006
> > #(nil true false foo) collect: [:ea| ea class] {UndefinedObject . True .
> > False . ByteSymbol}
> > #(nil true false foo) printString '#(nil true false #foo)'
> >
> >      But I suspect the appropriate standard use of curly brackets
> > > across multiple dialects is a whole other morass. :)
> >
> >
> > Having been living with Squeak for a while now I really, really like the
> > curly brace syntax.  I also note that it doesn't conflict with e.g.
> > VisualWorks use of #{name} for binding references.  So I have a strong
> > personal preference for it, but that's just personal.
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ANSI-Smalltalk mailing list
> > ANSI-Smalltalk at lists.openskills.org
> > http://lists.openskills.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ansi-smalltalk
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20080324/def8ec2d/attachment.html