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 donât like it too. Alain
Le 23 févr. 2016 à 09:50, Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess@gmail.com> a écrit :
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."