Thanks, Lucas! I like nice clear concise lists of logical reasons like this :-) Not that I disagree with Stef in any way at all, but can you think of reasons - other than the historical ones - why #value:value:value: and friends are to be preferred over #valueWithArguments: ? -- Cheers, Peter On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Lukas Renggli <renggli@gmail.com> wrote:
not right to me. I wanted to express the feeling that, for me, the one of the best things about Smalltalk is its readability in difference to C, which is very fast. The »new compiler optimize« both, anyway.
- The "New Compiler" does not yet work.
- The optimized #and:and:and: code never decompiled correctly.
- The exact semantics of #and:and:and: is not clear without knowing how it is implemented.
- There are subtle semantic differences between "a and: [ b ] and: [ c ] and: [ d ]" and "a and: [ b and: [ c and: [ d ] ] ]" if the conditions have side-effects.
- The #and:and:and: constructs are very confusing to newbies, I have seen that numerous times.
- The use of #and:and:and: doesn't shorten code.
- #and:and:and: is not necessary from a language point of view.
- And most important for me: #and:and:and: is incompatible with the rest of the world.
Lukas
-- Lukas Renggli www.lukas-renggli.ch
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project