Re: [Pharo-dev] [Bloc] Do we want <return: #Point> or <return: Point>
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 <mailto: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
please, please, please keep the scope of those experiments aside the main effort who is to have Block/Brick running as soon as possible. Esteban ps: ⦠optional types⦠at the end, we will realise Gilad was right all this time :)
Cheers, Doru
On Feb 23, 2016, at 10:25 AM, Alain Plantec via Pharo-dev <pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org <mailto:pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org>> wrote:
From: Alain Plantec <alain.plantec@yahoo.com <mailto: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 <mailto:pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org>>
I donât like it too. Alain
Le 23 févr. 2016 à 09:50, Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess@gmail.com <mailto:nicolaihess@gmail.com>> a écrit :
2016-02-23 9:47 GMT+01:00 stepharo <stepharo@free.fr <mailto: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 <http://www.tudorgirba.com/> www.feenk.com <http://www.feenk.com/>
"We are all great at making mistakes."
Hi,
On Feb 23, 2016, at 1:24 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm@gmail.com> wrote:
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
please, please, please keep the scope of those experiments aside the main effort who is to have Block/Brick running as soon as possible.
Esteban
ps: ⦠optional types⦠at the end, we will realise Gilad was right all this time :)
I think there is a misunderstanding. The current annotations are there for documentation purposes. Given that Alex did an extensive pass to document Bloc, they should remain in place as they document the contracts. Documentation like this is something we should embrace for such a central piece. That this also provides the information for a potential optional types experiment itâs a different issue, and it would not affect at all the implementation of Bloc. Cheers, Doru
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 interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair, you will end up with a messy haircut."
On 23 Feb 2016, at 13:43, Tudor Girba <tudor@tudorgirba.com> wrote:
Hi,
On Feb 23, 2016, at 1:24 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm@gmail.com> wrote:
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
please, please, please keep the scope of those experiments aside the main effort who is to have Block/Brick running as soon as possible.
Esteban
ps: ⦠optional types⦠at the end, we will realise Gilad was right all this time :)
I think there is a misunderstanding.
The current annotations are there for documentation purposes. Given that Alex did an extensive pass to document Bloc, they should remain in place as they document the contracts. Documentation like this is something we should embrace for such a central piece.
That this also provides the information for a potential optional types experiment itâs a different issue, and it would not affect at all the implementation of Bloc.
I understand why it is done in the context of documentation, and I am all for good documentation. But it really is a dangerous road to start on. It sends a weird signal, as if it is better to start adding static typing information. The next step will be that someone suggests to start adding the same kind of annotation typing information to all arguments, next all instance variable, it can't hurt right ? Then we write tools to use that information, then we start requiring it, next we have Java with tons of boiler plate code for nothing.
Cheers, Doru
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 interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair, you will end up with a messy haircut."
On 23 Feb 2016, at 13:57, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:
On 23 Feb 2016, at 13:43, Tudor Girba <tudor@tudorgirba.com> wrote:
Hi,
On Feb 23, 2016, at 1:24 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm@gmail.com> wrote:
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
please, please, please keep the scope of those experiments aside the main effort who is to have Block/Brick running as soon as possible.
Esteban
ps: ⦠optional types⦠at the end, we will realise Gilad was right all this time :)
I think there is a misunderstanding.
The current annotations are there for documentation purposes. Given that Alex did an extensive pass to document Bloc, they should remain in place as they document the contracts. Documentation like this is something we should embrace for such a central piece.
That this also provides the information for a potential optional types experiment itâs a different issue, and it would not affect at all the implementation of Bloc.
I understand why it is done in the context of documentation, and I am all for good documentation.
But it really is a dangerous road to start on. It sends a weird signal, as if it is better to start adding static typing information.
The next step will be that someone suggests to start adding the same kind of annotation typing information to all arguments, next all instance variable, it can't hurt right ? Then we write tools to use that information, then we start requiring it, next we have Java with tons of boiler plate code for nothing.
+1
Cheers, Doru
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 interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair, you will end up with a messy haircut."
participants (3)
-
Esteban Lorenzano -
Sven Van Caekenberghe -
Tudor Girba