Hi All,
_,,,^..^,,,_ (phone)
> On Sep 14, 2016, at 10:50 PM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr> wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> We can change it back and maybe add support for the reformatter to not convert it to the literal array #(3 #+ 4) .
>>
>> I do not know in fact this is why I asked :)
>> Now may be my idea to use pragma to get something like pythondoctest is a bad idea
>> but I really want to have literal programming.
>> What do you think?
> I like the idea to show examples/tests close to code, but pragmas are not really good...
>
>> If we have ' ' then it would be good that the syntax higlighter works with a special mode inside the ' '
>
> it is just a string. How do you know that it contains code?
>
> Would you highlight all string in all code as if it contained code? Or would you add this just for
> Pragmas? But even there, strings are string, not code.
>
> I think we can conclude that pragmas are not a good solution to the problem, as they are far
> too limited to express code.
I think that's not a safe conclusion.�� We know from Igor's use of Kieran arrays for C signatures in the UFFI, and can easily extrapolate here, that arbitrary Smalltalk expressions /can/ be expressed in literal arrays.�� S expressions work for lisp.
In this particular case special casing pretty printing of literal arrays in pragmas would be all that's needed to make the code look beautiful.�� Why throw the baby out with the bath water?�� It would be so easy to make this work well.
The only thing I'd do would be to print like this to make it clear that the argument t is a literal Array and not some magic form of code:
�� �� ��<expr: #(3 + 4) result: 7>
>
>�� �� Marcus
>
>
>
>
>
>