On 23 Feb 2016, at 13:20, 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: 23 February 2016 at 13:19:34 GMT+1

To: Pharo Development List <pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org>

Hello Doru, 

On 23 Feb 2016, at 10:33, 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?

Experimenting optional types is a good idea. We could have Tools to dynamically check them.

What about a separate typing model that could be used to add/remove the types annotations ?

Also, I wonder if Bloc is the good package to experiment optional types. Maybe it is not stable enough. 

Cheers

Alain

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."