On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de> 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.


Let me be specific.  I'm not confused (about this at least).  I know that
the old "primitive pragma" actually specified code.  However, it was
/called/ a primitive pragma, and the "pragma" terminology descends from that
incorrect usage.


>
>
>  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.
>
> Cheers,
>  - Andreas
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20100427/5b9dafd3/attachment.htm