[Pharo-project] about and:and:and:and: and or:or:
hi all Jannik and jb started to replace all the and:and: and:and:and: and:and:and:and: and the same for or: by they equivalent ie 1 =2 or: [ 1=3 ] or: [1=1] => 1 =2 or: [ 1=3 or: [1=1]] the new compiler optimize both while the old one not. So now I would like to see what do you think. Personnally I do not like and:and:and: and more Now for and:and: I'm hesitating. Stef
On 11 February 2010 20:53, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:
hi all
Jannik and jb started to replace all the     and:and:     and:and:and:     and:and:and:and:     and the same for or:
by they equivalent ie
1 =2 or: [ 1=3 ] or: [1=1] => 1 =2 or: [ 1=3 Â or: [1=1]]
the new compiler optimize both while the old one not. So now I would like to see what do you think.
Personnally I do not like and:and:and: and more Now for and:and: I'm hesitating.
I am against using #and:and: and #or:or:. It is slow, confusing and incompatible with any other Smalltalk out there. Kill all users ;-) Lukas
Stef
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- Lukas Renggli http://www.lukas-renggli.ch
2010/2/11 Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr>:
hi all
Jannik and jb started to replace all the     and:and:     and:and:and:     and:and:and:and:     and the same for or:
by they equivalent ie
1 =2 or: [ 1=3 ] or: [1=1] => 1 =2 or: [ 1=3 Â or: [1=1]]
the new compiler optimize both while the old one not. So now I would like to see what do you think.
Personnally I do not like and:and:and: and more Now for and:and: I'm hesitating.
IMO, the only value was for legibility. But most time, I find nested code as readable. Sure we could also optimize all kind of alternate forms... But I'm not sure if it is a good idea to multiply compiler hacks... Nicolas
Stef
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Ok kill them all. thanks for push me when I think too much :) Stef On Feb 11, 2010, at 9:11 PM, Nicolas Cellier wrote:
2010/2/11 Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr>:
hi all
Jannik and jb started to replace all the and:and: and:and:and: and:and:and:and: and the same for or:
by they equivalent ie
1 =2 or: [ 1=3 ] or: [1=1] => 1 =2 or: [ 1=3 or: [1=1]]
the new compiler optimize both while the old one not. So now I would like to see what do you think.
Personnally I do not like and:and:and: and more Now for and:and: I'm hesitating.
IMO, the only value was for legibility. But most time, I find nested code as readable. Sure we could also optimize all kind of alternate forms... But I'm not sure if it is a good idea to multiply compiler hacks...
Nicolas
Stef
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
participants (3)
-
Lukas Renggli -
Nicolas Cellier -
Stéphane Ducasse