On Feb 23, 2016, at 1:17 PM, stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote:
I do not think that Pharo will become a static language :)
Certainly not a static language! :))
For the moment we can let it as a documentation. Now I would prefer to have tests because such annotations may be obsolete.
Certainly. They should come.
Anyway the code quality of aleksei is really good.
:) Doru
Le 23/2/16 10:33, Tudor Girba a écrit :
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?
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."
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com "If you can't say why something is relevant, it probably isn't."