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

Hannes Hirzel hannes.hirzel at gmail.com
Mon Apr 26 22:47:43 UTC 2010


To be precise, _you_ say it is silly. _I_ say it's not. You call them
"guys" because it seems that you do dare anymore to use their name....

Yes, I do not question the usefulness of pragmas for what they have
been used so far. Primitives and version control related things. I
oppose to use them in addition for menu definitions.

In your conversation so far you used the term 'method-annotations' as
a synonym for pragma.
This is interesting and might lead to a solution for this discussion.

It's about 'conceptualisation'. Overloading a concept with too many
meanings was never a good idea in system design.

And: to me the code for the menu definitions looks ugly. A kind of
assembler like, lisp-s expression thing with a lot of implied

The MenuSpec is a straighforward thing. And I think it is more
appealing for the younger generation.

I think I have said now enough about this issue and will not comment
on this anymore.

The practical problem we are currently facing with Squeak 4.1 is that
it cannot display pictures in the the file browser and that adding
entries to the menu is not possible in a clean way.


On 4/26/10, Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de> wrote:
> On 27.04.2010, at 00:21, Hannes Hirzel wrote:
>>> Terminology is important and the terminology we currently
>>> have is *extremely* confusing.
>> And that is why I am reluctant having these pragmas 'crawl' into menu
>> definitions.
> Now that's just silly, sorry. Nobody is questioning the utility of these
> guys, whatever we call them.
> - Bert -

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list