On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:33 PM, Tudor Girba <tudor@tudorgirba.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> At the moment, it is used for documentation purposes in Bloc. It is part of the effort of Alex to document Bloc thoroughly. I think it is an interesting idea, in that we would have a significant case study for that can be used later as optional types information to improve static tool support. And it does not hurt at the moment.
>
> What do you think?
I have often wonder what a system would be like if you *only* typed
the return values of selectors, defined globally so each selector has
just *one* return type (but it wouldn't a particular object, more a
method-set-fingerprint, you might be able to statically check that the
each message in a chain would be understood - but I never think deep
enough on it to understand the benefit/cost of it.
cheers -ben
>
> Cheers,
> Doru
>
>
>> On Feb 23, 2016, at 10:25 AM, Alain Plantec via Pharo-dev <pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> From: Alain Plantec <alain.plantec@yahoo.com>
>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] [Bloc] Do we want <return: #Point> or <return: Point>
>> Date: February 23, 2016 at 10:23:33 AM GMT+1
>> To: Pharo Development List <pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org>
>>
>>
>> I don���t like it too.
>> Alain
>>
>>> Le 23 f��vr. 2016 �� 09:50, Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess@gmail.com> a ��crit :
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2016-02-23 9:47 GMT+01:00 stepharo <stepharo@free.fr>:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> I saw that something <return: #Point> or <return: Point>
>>> I do not know why but I have the impression that <return: #Point> is better.
>>> Because we may have code not present and still want to load the code.
>>>
>>> I would like to know for what this is used.
>>> I don't like it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Stef
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> www.tudorgirba.com
> www.feenk.com
>
> "We are all great at making mistakes."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>