[squeak-dev] Re: Pragmas (Re: The Inbox: Morphic-phite.429.mcz)
hannes.hirzel at gmail.com
Mon Apr 26 22:21:50 UTC 2010
I do not really understand this joke in particular as Andreas writes
<citation>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.</citation>
I agree with him. Please note the workd 'extremly'. And that is why I
am reluctant having these pragmas 'crawl' into menu definitions.
As I have seen so far
- Pragmas are used in connection with primitives
- they are used in connection with package versions.
Therefore I do not see a need to connect them to menus.
Bert, if you insist on having them for the menus then we need to add
comments explaining that once more the Smalltalk community has gone
for another idiosyncratic term.
On 4/26/10, Lawson English <lenglish5 at cox.net> wrote:
> 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 never claimed that that "pragmas are code". In fact, I said
>>>> 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