[squeak-dev] Re: Pragmas (Re: The Inbox: Morphic-phite.429.mcz)

Lawson English lenglish5 at cox.net
Mon Apr 26 21:35:51 UTC 2010

Andreas Raab wrote:
> On 4/26/2010 1:56 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>>>> If pragmas would be the code, then i expect them to look like code 
>>>> i.e.:
>>> I never claimed that that "pragmas are code". In fact, I said 
>>> *specifically*
>>> the opposite.
>> Ok, then i wonder, what is the subject of discussion?
> The subject of the post was an attempt to clarify what pragmas are and 
> what they aren't. Given that even Eliot is confused about it by 
> referring to "primitive pragmas" that seemed worthwhile all by itself.
>> If its only about terminology, then its not interesting. We may call
>> it pragma, method annotation or whatever.
>> I think that more improtant is how we handling it and what we can do 
>> with it.
> Terminology is important and the terminology we currently have is 
> *extremely* confusing. People refer to "pragmas" and whenever a third 
> party hears that they think "oh, compiler stuff, better stay away from 
> it" not realizing that that's not what these are. This is how this 
> discussion started after all.
Could take a page from QM and just refer to "<>" as Bra-Ket notation...



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list