[ANN] Towards a new File In / File Out format

> Dear Squeakers,
>
> When writing papers with Smalltalk code, or even sometimes when  
> programming, I noticed that we need some way to express method  
> definitions in a simple text file while still showing the class  
> where they are defined. The current (legacy) file in/out format  
> proves inappropriate. I wanted to get ride of exclamation mark and  
> ease linking methods to classes. So, I started thinking of  
> something else, and started a new project on this topic on  
> SqueakSource:
>
> http://www.squeaksource.com/NewFileInOutFormat.html
>
> My target is to have .st files as a squence of any valid Smalltalk  
> expression and to provide a simple protocol for defining methods.  
> For now,  method definitions are possible using, two messages.
>
> -The first one is short and allows adding a method to a class  
> without taking care of the category (the method appears in the  
> browser 'as yet unclassified'). Example :
> MyClass << #(myMethod "Body of myMethod" )
>
> -The second message to add a method under some particular category.  
> Example :
> MyClass inCategory: #someCategory addMethod: #(myMethod "Body of  
> myMethod" )
>
>
> For comparison, here is the same example in the file In/Out format  
> currently used in Squeak
> !MyClass methodsFor: 'someCategory' stamp: 'nbo 5/23/2006 12:08'!
> myMethod
> "Body of myMethod"! !
>
> Note that the current version is still uncomplete. It does lose  
> comments, author info, timestamps, and formatting (though the  
> installed code is formatted using the pretty printer).
>
> Noury
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Dr. Noury Bouraqadi - Enseignant/Chercheur
> Ecole des Mines de Douai - Dept. G.I.P
> http://csl.ensm-douai.fr/noury
>
> European Smalltalk Users Group Board
> http://www.esug.org
>
> Squeak: an Open Source Smalltalk
> http://www.squeak.org
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>

>
> Le 29 mai 06, à 12:33, Ralph Johnson a écrit :
>
>> I have throught that an XML form would be good so that search engines
>> would turn the entire internet into a single searchable repository.
>> VisualWorks uses XML for input/output but it isn't a good format.  I
>> recall that another version of Smalltalk has a better version, but I
>> don't remember which one.
>>
> But, XML is hardly readable/editable by humans. I think we should  
> have both XML and non-XML formats. The first for machines and the  
> second for humans.
>
>> If you are primarily interested in publishing code in papers, you
>> ought to produce rtf or LaTex or something similar, and not worry
>> about filing it in.
>>
> No, this is not my primary goal. But, I wanted to have the  
> equivalent of MyClass>>#myMethod for providing method definitions.  
> So, I added :
>
> MyClass<<#(myMethod
>  "methodBody")
>
>
>> One thing to worry about with treating an entire source file as a
>> single Smalltalk expression is that the compiler has a limit on the
>> number of literatls.  I don't know what it is, but that will limit  
>> the
>> number of methods you can have in a file.
>>
> No, I don't want to have the entire file as a single expression,  
> but a sequence of expressions that will be parsed and evaluated  
> successively.
>
> Noury
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Dr. Noury Bouraqadi - Enseignant/Chercheur
> Ecole des Mines de Douai - Dept. G.I.P
> http://csl.ensm-douai.fr/noury
>
> European Smalltalk Users Group Board
> http://www.esug.org
>
> Squeak: an Open Source Smalltalk
> http://www.squeak.org
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>