Just as a personal opinion, I usually type literal arrays in "full detail" syntax, such as...<br><br>#(#abc '123' 456 nil false)<br><br>I feel it's more consistent to express individual literals as one would do outside the scope of a literal array. In that way, #abc is always written #abc (or #'abc', but not abc).<br>
<br>This is more of a subjective taste thing than anything else though.<br><br>Andres.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 1:34 PM, Paolo Bonzini <<a href="mailto:bonzini@gnu.org">bonzini@gnu.org</a>> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
> Somewhat drifting from the original topic, but I'll note that the ANSI<br>
> standard does not have symbols in array without a prefixed # (the only<br>
> "bare" keywords accepted there are true/false/nil and they signify the<br>
> three objects).<br>
><br>
> Which is something I'd change. Which dialects don't support the<br>
> non-ANSI behaviour?<br>
<br>
</div>GNU Smalltalk. I'm not opposed to changing it, *but* watch out because<br>
it's incompatible. I would also appreciate an input on why the current<br>
choice was made.<br>
<br>
I would oppose for sure having #(abc true) mean "Array with: #abc with:<br>
true". That would be the worst of both worlds.<br>
<div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br>
Paolo<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
ANSI-Smalltalk mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:ANSI-Smalltalk@lists.openskills.org">ANSI-Smalltalk@lists.openskills.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openskills.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ansi-smalltalk" target="_blank">http://lists.openskills.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ansi-smalltalk</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>