Smalltalk › Pharo › Pharo Smalltalk Developers

[Bloc] Do we want <return: #Point> or <return: Point>

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

26 messages Options

stepharo

[Bloc] Do we want <return: #Point> or <return: Point>

Hi

I saw that something <return: #Point> or <return: Point>
I do not know why but I have the impression that <return: #Point> is better.
Because we may have code not present and still want to load the code.

Stef

Nicolai Hess-3-2

Re: [Bloc] Do we want <return: #Point> or <return: Point>

2016-02-23 9:47 GMT+01:00 stepharo <[hidden email]>:

Hi

I saw that something <return: #Point> or <return: Point>
I do not know why but I have the impression that <return: #Point> is better.
Because we may have code not present and still want to load the code.

I would like to know for what this is used.

I don't like it.

Stef

Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list

Re: [Bloc] Do we want <return: #Point> or <return: Point>

I don’t like it too.

Alain

Le 23 févr. 2016 à 09:50, Nicolai Hess <[hidden email]> a écrit :

2016-02-23 9:47 GMT+01:00 stepharo <[hidden email]>:
Hi

I saw that something <return: #Point> or <return: Point>
I do not know why but I have the impression that <return: #Point> is better.
Because we may have code not present and still want to load the code.

I would like to know for what this is used.
I don't like it.

Stef

Tudor Girba-2

Re: [Bloc] Do we want <return: #Point> or <return: Point>

Hi,

At the moment, it is used for documentation purposes in Bloc. It is part of the effort of Alex to document Bloc thoroughly. I think it is an interesting idea, in that we would have a significant case study for that can be used later as optional types information to improve static tool support. And it does not hurt at the moment.

What do you think?

Cheers,
Doru

> On Feb 23, 2016, at 10:25 AM, Alain Plantec via Pharo-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> From: Alain Plantec <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] [Bloc] Do we want <return: #Point> or <return: Point>
> Date: February 23, 2016 at 10:23:33 AM GMT+1
> To: Pharo Development List <[hidden email]>
>
>
> I don’t like it too.
> Alain
>
>> Le 23 févr. 2016 à 09:50, Nicolai Hess <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>>
>>
>>
>> 2016-02-23 9:47 GMT+01:00 stepharo <[hidden email]>:
>> Hi
>>
>> I saw that something <return: #Point> or <return: Point>
>> I do not know why but I have the impression that <return: #Point> is better.
>> Because we may have code not present and still want to load the code.
>>
>> I would like to know for what this is used.
>> I don't like it.
>>
>>
>> Stef
>>
>>
>
>
>

--
www.tudorgirba.com
www.feenk.com

"We are all great at making mistakes."

abergel

Re: [Bloc] Do we want <return: #Point> or <return: Point>

In reply to this post by stepharo

Just emerging from holidays. Is there an effort to have type annotations? How these annotations are then used?

Alexandre

> On Feb 23, 2016, at 5:47 AM, stepharo <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I saw that something <return: #Point> or <return: Point>
> I do not know why but I have the impression that <return: #Point> is better.
> Because we may have code not present and still want to load the code.
>
> Stef
>

--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.

Peter Uhnak

Re: [Bloc] Do we want <return: #Point> or <return: Point>

> Because we may have code not present and still want to load the code.

I think it's just visual, because it's still referenced as string in the pragma itself.

For example

Person>>contact

<DCType: Contact multiplicity: #(1 '*')>

^ contact ifNil: [ contact := OrderedCollection new ]

But,

(Person>>#contact) pragmas first arguments first class == ByteSymbol

Does it fail to load otherwise?

Peter

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Alexandre Bergel <[hidden email]> wrote:

Just emerging from holidays. Is there an effort to have type annotations? How these annotations are then used?

Alexandre

> On Feb 23, 2016, at 5:47 AM, stepharo <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I saw that something <return: #Point> or <return: Point>
> I do not know why but I have the impression that <return: #Point> is better.
> Because we may have code not present and still want to load the code.
>
> Stef
>

--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.

Nicolai Hess-3-2

Re: [Bloc] Do we want <return: #Point> or <return: Point>

Old compiler does not allowed
<return: Point>

only
<return: #Point>

And I think opal should behave the same (not fixed yet)

2016-02-23 11:01 GMT+01:00 Peter Uhnák <[hidden email]>:

> Because we may have code not present and still want to load the code.

I think it's just visual, because it's still referenced as string in the pragma itself.
For example

Person>>contact
<DCType: Contact multiplicity: #(1 '*')>
^ contact ifNil: [ contact := OrderedCollection new ]

But,
(Person>>#contact) pragmas first arguments first class == ByteSymbol

Does it fail to load otherwise?

Peter

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Alexandre Bergel <[hidden email]> wrote:
Just emerging from holidays. Is there an effort to have type annotations? How these annotations are then used?

Alexandre

> On Feb 23, 2016, at 5:47 AM, stepharo <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I saw that something <return: #Point> or <return: Point>
> I do not know why but I have the impression that <return: #Point> is better.
> Because we may have code not present and still want to load the code.
>
> Stef
>

--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.

Sven Van Caekenberghe-2

Re: [Bloc] Do we want <return: #Point> or <return: Point>

In reply to this post by abergel

> On 23 Feb 2016, at 10:43, Alexandre Bergel <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Just emerging from holidays. Is there an effort to have type annotations? How these annotations are then used?

Apparently just for documentation

Still this is a dangerous 'precedent' as it might give the wrong impression

> Alexandre
>
>
>> On Feb 23, 2016, at 5:47 AM, stepharo <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> I saw that something <return: #Point> or <return: Point>
>> I do not know why but I have the impression that <return: #Point> is better.
>> Because we may have code not present and still want to load the code.
>>
>> Stef
>>
>
> --
> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
> Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
>
>
>
>

Henrik Sperre Johansen

Re: [Bloc] Do we want <return: #Point> or <return: Point>

In reply to this post by Peter Uhnak

Sounds like a recipe for creating documentation that gets out of sync quickly/has bugs of its own, if you ask me...

For instance, in the example, it seems weird multiplicity: (1 '*') when the method returns an empty collection if contact is nil (multiplicity 0)

Cheers,

Henry

On 23 Feb 2016, at 11:01 , Peter Uhnák <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Because we may have code not present and still want to load the code.

I think it's just visual, because it's still referenced as string in the pragma itself.
For example

Person>>contact
<DCType: Contact multiplicity: #(1 '*')>
^ contact ifNil: [ contact := OrderedCollection new ]

But,
(Person>>#contact) pragmas first arguments first class == ByteSymbol

Does it fail to load otherwise?

Peter

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Alexandre Bergel <[hidden email]> wrote:
Just emerging from holidays. Is there an effort to have type annotations? How these annotations are then used?

Alexandre

> On Feb 23, 2016, at 5:47 AM, stepharo <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I saw that something <return: #Point> or <return: Point>
> I do not know why but I have the impression that <return: #Point> is better.
> Because we may have code not present and still want to load the code.
>
> Stef
>

--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.

signature.asc (859 bytes) Download Attachment

Peter Uhnak

Re: [Bloc] Do we want <return: #Point> or <return: Point>

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Henrik Johansen <[hidden email]> wrote:

Sounds like a recipe for creating documentation that gets out of sync quickly/has bugs of its own, if you ask me...
For instance, in the example, it seems weird multiplicity: (1 '*') when the method returns an empty collection if contact is nil (multiplicity 0)

The multiplicity is unrelated to the question (it's from my project), I was merely demonstrating the ByteSymbol storage.

But thanks for the bug report, I'll have to fix that. :)

Peter

Ben Coman

Re: [Bloc] Do we want <return: #Point> or <return: Point>

In reply to this post by Tudor Girba-2

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:33 PM, Tudor Girba <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> At the moment, it is used for documentation purposes in Bloc. It is part of the effort of Alex to document Bloc thoroughly. I think it is an interesting idea, in that we would have a significant case study for that can be used later as optional types information to improve static tool support. And it does not hurt at the moment.
>
> What do you think?

I have often wonder what a system would be like if you *only* typed
the return values of selectors, defined globally so each selector has
just *one* return type (but it wouldn't a particular object, more a
method-set-fingerprint, you might be able to statically check that the
each message in a chain would be understood - but I never think deep
enough on it to understand the benefit/cost of it.

cheers -ben

>
> Cheers,
> Doru
>
>
>> On Feb 23, 2016, at 10:25 AM, Alain Plantec via Pharo-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> From: Alain Plantec <[hidden email]>
>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] [Bloc] Do we want <return: #Point> or <return: Point>
>> Date: February 23, 2016 at 10:23:33 AM GMT+1
>> To: Pharo Development List <[hidden email]>
>>
>>
>> I don’t like it too.
>> Alain
>>
>>> Le 23 févr. 2016 à 09:50, Nicolai Hess <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2016-02-23 9:47 GMT+01:00 stepharo <[hidden email]>:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> I saw that something <return: #Point> or <return: Point>
>>> I do not know why but I have the impression that <return: #Point> is better.
>>> Because we may have code not present and still want to load the code.
>>>
>>> I would like to know for what this is used.
>>> I don't like it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Stef
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> www.tudorgirba.com
> www.feenk.com
>
> "We are all great at making mistakes."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

stepharo

Re: [Bloc] Do we want <return: #Point> or <return: Point>

In reply to this post by abergel

Pablo Tesone Phd was on type inferencing but he accepted another PhD
topics with Noury and us.

Le 23/2/16 10:43, Alexandre Bergel a écrit :

> Just emerging from holidays. Is there an effort to have type annotations? How these annotations are then used?
>
> Alexandre
>
>
>> On Feb 23, 2016, at 5:47 AM, stepharo <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> I saw that something <return: #Point> or <return: Point>
>> I do not know why but I have the impression that <return: #Point> is better.
>> Because we may have code not present and still want to load the code.
>>
>> Stef
>>

stepharo

Re: [Bloc] Do we want <return: #Point> or <return: Point>

In reply to this post by Nicolai Hess-3-2

Ok so I will use #

Stef

Le 23/2/16 11:09, Nicolai Hess a écrit :

Old compiler does not allowed
<return: Point>

only
<return: #Point>

And I think opal should behave the same (not fixed yet)

2016-02-23 11:01 GMT+01:00 Peter Uhnák <[hidden email]>:

> Because we may have code not present and still want to load the code.

I think it's just visual, because it's still referenced as string in the pragma itself.

For example

Person>>contact

<DCType: Contact multiplicity: #(1 '*')>

^ contact ifNil: [ contact := OrderedCollection new ]

But,

(Person>>#contact) pragmas first arguments first class == ByteSymbol

Does it fail to load otherwise?

Peter

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Alexandre Bergel <[hidden email]> wrote:

Just emerging from holidays. Is there an effort to have type annotations? How these annotations are then used?

Alexandre

> On Feb 23, 2016, at 5:47 AM, stepharo <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I saw that something <return: #Point> or <return: Point>
> I do not know why but I have the impression that <return: #Point> is better.
> Because we may have code not present and still want to load the code.
>
> Stef
>

--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.

stepharo

Re: [Bloc] Do we want <return: #Point> or <return: Point>

In reply to this post by Tudor Girba-2

I do not think that Pharo will become a static language :)
For the moment we can let it as a documentation.
Now I would prefer to have tests because such annotations may be obsolete.
Anyway the code quality of aleksei is really good.

Le 23/2/16 10:33, Tudor Girba a écrit :

> Hi,
>
> At the moment, it is used for documentation purposes in Bloc. It is part of the effort of Alex to document Bloc thoroughly. I think it is an interesting idea, in that we would have a significant case study for that can be used later as optional types information to improve static tool support. And it does not hurt at the moment.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Cheers,
> Doru
>
>
>> On Feb 23, 2016, at 10:25 AM, Alain Plantec via Pharo-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> From: Alain Plantec <[hidden email]>
>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] [Bloc] Do we want <return: #Point> or <return: Point>
>> Date: February 23, 2016 at 10:23:33 AM GMT+1
>> To: Pharo Development List <[hidden email]>
>>
>>
>> I don’t like it too.
>> Alain
>>
>>> Le 23 févr. 2016 à 09:50, Nicolai Hess <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2016-02-23 9:47 GMT+01:00 stepharo <[hidden email]>:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> I saw that something <return: #Point> or <return: Point>
>>> I do not know why but I have the impression that <return: #Point> is better.
>>> Because we may have code not present and still want to load the code.
>>>
>>> I would like to know for what this is used.
>>> I don't like it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Stef
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> --
> www.tudorgirba.com
> www.feenk.com
>
> "We are all great at making mistakes."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list

Re: [Bloc] Do we want <return: #Point> or <return: Point>

In reply to this post by Tudor Girba-2

Hello Doru,

On 23 Feb 2016, at 10:33, Tudor Girba <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi,

At the moment, it is used for documentation purposes in Bloc. It is part of the effort of Alex to document Bloc thoroughly. I think it is an interesting idea, in that we would have a significant case study for that can be used later as optional types information to improve static tool support. And it does not hurt at the moment.

What do you think?

Experimenting optional types is a good idea. We could have Tools to dynamically check them.

What about a separate typing model that could be used to add/remove the types annotations ?

Also, I wonder if Bloc is the good package to experiment optional types. Maybe it is not stable enough.

Cheers

Alain

Cheers,
Doru

On Feb 23, 2016, at 10:25 AM, Alain Plantec via Pharo-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:

From: Alain Plantec <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] [Bloc] Do we want <return: #Point> or <return: Point>
Date: February 23, 2016 at 10:23:33 AM GMT+1
To: Pharo Development List <[hidden email]>

I don’t like it too.
Alain

Le 23 févr. 2016 à 09:50, Nicolai Hess <[hidden email]> a écrit :

2016-02-23 9:47 GMT+01:00 stepharo <[hidden email]>:
Hi

I saw that something <return: #Point> or <return: Point>
I do not know why but I have the impression that <return: #Point> is better.
Because we may have code not present and still want to load the code.

I would like to know for what this is used.
I don't like it.

Stef

--
www.tudorgirba.com
www.feenk.com

"We are all great at making mistakes."

EstebanLM

Re: [Bloc] Do we want <return: #Point> or <return: Point>

On 23 Feb 2016, at 13:20, Alain Plantec via Pharo-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:

From: Alain Plantec <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] [Bloc] Do we want <return: #Point> or <return: Point>
Date: 23 February 2016 at 13:19:34 GMT+1
To: Pharo Development List <[hidden email]>

Hello Doru,

On 23 Feb 2016, at 10:33, Tudor Girba <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi,

At the moment, it is used for documentation purposes in Bloc. It is part of the effort of Alex to document Bloc thoroughly. I think it is an interesting idea, in that we would have a significant case study for that can be used later as optional types information to improve static tool support. And it does not hurt at the moment.

What do you think?

Experimenting optional types is a good idea. We could have Tools to dynamically check them.
What about a separate typing model that could be used to add/remove the types annotations ?
Also, I wonder if Bloc is the good package to experiment optional types. Maybe it is not stable enough.
Cheers
Alain

please, please, please keep the scope of those experiments aside the main effort who is to have Block/Brick running as soon as possible.

Esteban

ps: … optional types… at the end, we will realise Gilad was right all this time :)

Cheers,
Doru

On Feb 23, 2016, at 10:25 AM, Alain Plantec via Pharo-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:

From: Alain Plantec <[hidden email]>

Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] [Bloc] Do we want <return: #Point> or <return: Point>
Date: February 23, 2016 at 10:23:33 AM GMT+1
To: Pharo Development List <[hidden email]>

I don’t like it too.
Alain

Le 23 févr. 2016 à 09:50, Nicolai Hess <[hidden email]> a écrit :

2016-02-23 9:47 GMT+01:00 stepharo <[hidden email]>:
Hi

I saw that something <return: #Point> or <return: Point>
I do not know why but I have the impression that <return: #Point> is better.
Because we may have code not present and still want to load the code.

I would like to know for what this is used.
I don't like it.

Stef

--
www.tudorgirba.com
www.feenk.com

"We are all great at making mistakes."

Tudor Girba-2

Re: [Bloc] Do we want <return: #Point> or <return: Point>

In reply to this post by stepharo

> On Feb 23, 2016, at 1:17 PM, stepharo <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I do not think that Pharo will become a static language :)

Certainly not a static language! :))

> For the moment we can let it as a documentation.
> Now I would prefer to have tests because such annotations may be obsolete.

Certainly. They should come.

> Anyway the code quality of aleksei is really good.

:)

Doru

> Le 23/2/16 10:33, Tudor Girba a écrit :
>> Hi,
>>
>> At the moment, it is used for documentation purposes in Bloc. It is part of the effort of Alex to document Bloc thoroughly. I think it is an interesting idea, in that we would have a significant case study for that can be used later as optional types information to improve static tool support. And it does not hurt at the moment.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Doru
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 23, 2016, at 10:25 AM, Alain Plantec via Pharo-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Alain Plantec <[hidden email]>
>>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] [Bloc] Do we want <return: #Point> or <return: Point>
>>> Date: February 23, 2016 at 10:23:33 AM GMT+1
>>> To: Pharo Development List <[hidden email]>
>>>
>>>
>>> I don’t like it too.
>>> Alain
>>>
>>>> Le 23 févr. 2016 à 09:50, Nicolai Hess <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2016-02-23 9:47 GMT+01:00 stepharo <[hidden email]>:
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> I saw that something <return: #Point> or <return: Point>
>>>> I do not know why but I have the impression that <return: #Point> is better.
>>>> Because we may have code not present and still want to load the code.
>>>>
>>>> I would like to know for what this is used.
>>>> I don't like it.
>>>>
>>>> Stef
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> www.tudorgirba.com
>> www.feenk.com
>>
>> "We are all great at making mistakes."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

--
www.tudorgirba.com
www.feenk.com

"If you can't say why something is relevant,
it probably isn't."

Tudor Girba-2

Re: [Bloc] Do we want <return: #Point> or <return: Point>

In reply to this post by EstebanLM

Hi,

> On Feb 23, 2016, at 1:24 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>> On 23 Feb 2016, at 13:20, Alain Plantec via Pharo-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> From: Alain Plantec <[hidden email]>
>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] [Bloc] Do we want <return: #Point> or <return: Point>
>> Date: 23 February 2016 at 13:19:34 GMT+1
>> To: Pharo Development List <[hidden email]>
>>
>>
>> Hello Doru,
>>
>>> On 23 Feb 2016, at 10:33, Tudor Girba <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> At the moment, it is used for documentation purposes in Bloc. It is part of the effort of Alex to document Bloc thoroughly. I think it is an interesting idea, in that we would have a significant case study for that can be used later as optional types information to improve static tool support. And it does not hurt at the moment.
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>
>> Experimenting optional types is a good idea. We could have Tools to dynamically check them.
>> What about a separate typing model that could be used to add/remove the types annotations ?
>> Also, I wonder if Bloc is the good package to experiment optional types. Maybe it is not stable enough.
>> Cheers
>> Alain
>
> please, please, please keep the scope of those experiments aside the main effort who is to have Block/Brick running as soon as possible.
>
> Esteban
>
> ps: … optional types… at the end, we will realise Gilad was right all this time :)

I think there is a misunderstanding.

The current annotations are there for documentation purposes. Given that Alex did an extensive pass to document Bloc, they should remain in place as they document the contracts. Documentation like this is something we should embrace for such a central piece.

That this also provides the information for a potential optional types experiment it’s a different issue, and it would not affect at all the implementation of Bloc.

Cheers,
Doru

>>
>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Doru
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Feb 23, 2016, at 10:25 AM, Alain Plantec via Pharo-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Alain Plantec <[hidden email]>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] [Bloc] Do we want <return: #Point> or <return: Point>
>>>> Date: February 23, 2016 at 10:23:33 AM GMT+1
>>>> To: Pharo Development List <[hidden email]>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don’t like it too.
>>>> Alain
>>>>
>>>>> Le 23 févr. 2016 à 09:50, Nicolai Hess <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2016-02-23 9:47 GMT+01:00 stepharo <[hidden email]>:
>>>>> Hi
>>>>>
>>>>> I saw that something <return: #Point> or <return: Point>
>>>>> I do not know why but I have the impression that <return: #Point> is better.
>>>>> Because we may have code not present and still want to load the code.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to know for what this is used.
>>>>> I don't like it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Stef
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> www.tudorgirba.com
>>> www.feenk.com
>>>
>>> "We are all great at making mistakes."
>>
>>
>>
>

--
www.tudorgirba.com
www.feenk.com

"If you interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair,
you will end up with a messy haircut."

Sven Van Caekenberghe-2

Re: [Bloc] Do we want <return: #Point> or <return: Point>

> On 23 Feb 2016, at 13:43, Tudor Girba <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> On Feb 23, 2016, at 1:24 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 23 Feb 2016, at 13:20, Alain Plantec via Pharo-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Alain Plantec <[hidden email]>
>>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] [Bloc] Do we want <return: #Point> or <return: Point>
>>> Date: 23 February 2016 at 13:19:34 GMT+1
>>> To: Pharo Development List <[hidden email]>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hello Doru,
>>>
>>>> On 23 Feb 2016, at 10:33, Tudor Girba <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> At the moment, it is used for documentation purposes in Bloc. It is part of the effort of Alex to document Bloc thoroughly. I think it is an interesting idea, in that we would have a significant case study for that can be used later as optional types information to improve static tool support. And it does not hurt at the moment.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> Experimenting optional types is a good idea. We could have Tools to dynamically check them.
>>> What about a separate typing model that could be used to add/remove the types annotations ?
>>> Also, I wonder if Bloc is the good package to experiment optional types. Maybe it is not stable enough.
>>> Cheers
>>> Alain
>>
>> please, please, please keep the scope of those experiments aside the main effort who is to have Block/Brick running as soon as possible.
>>
>> Esteban
>>
>> ps: … optional types… at the end, we will realise Gilad was right all this time :)
>
> I think there is a misunderstanding.
>
> The current annotations are there for documentation purposes. Given that Alex did an extensive pass to document Bloc, they should remain in place as they document the contracts. Documentation like this is something we should embrace for such a central piece.
>
> That this also provides the information for a potential optional types experiment it’s a different issue, and it would not affect at all the implementation of Bloc.

I understand why it is done in the context of documentation, and I am all for good documentation.

But it really is a dangerous road to start on. It sends a weird signal, as if it is better to start adding static typing information.

The next step will be that someone suggests to start adding the same kind of annotation typing information to all arguments, next all instance variable, it can't hurt right ? Then we write tools to use that information, then we start requiring it, next we have Java with tons of boiler plate code for nothing.

> Cheers,
> Doru
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Doru
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 23, 2016, at 10:25 AM, Alain Plantec via Pharo-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Alain Plantec <[hidden email]>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] [Bloc] Do we want <return: #Point> or <return: Point>
>>>>> Date: February 23, 2016 at 10:23:33 AM GMT+1
>>>>> To: Pharo Development List <[hidden email]>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don’t like it too.
>>>>> Alain
>>>>>
>>>>>> Le 23 févr. 2016 à 09:50, Nicolai Hess <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2016-02-23 9:47 GMT+01:00 stepharo <[hidden email]>:
>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I saw that something <return: #Point> or <return: Point>
>>>>>> I do not know why but I have the impression that <return: #Point> is better.
>>>>>> Because we may have code not present and still want to load the code.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would like to know for what this is used.
>>>>>> I don't like it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stef
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> www.tudorgirba.com
>>>> www.feenk.com
>>>>
>>>> "We are all great at making mistakes."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> --
> www.tudorgirba.com
> www.feenk.com
>
> "If you interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair,
> you will end up with a messy haircut."

EstebanLM

Re: [Bloc] Do we want <return: #Point> or <return: Point>

On 23 Feb 2016, at 13:57, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 23 Feb 2016, at 13:43, Tudor Girba <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi,

On Feb 23, 2016, at 1:24 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 23 Feb 2016, at 13:20, Alain Plantec via Pharo-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:

From: Alain Plantec <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] [Bloc] Do we want <return: #Point> or <return: Point>
Date: 23 February 2016 at 13:19:34 GMT+1
To: Pharo Development List <[hidden email]>

Hello Doru,

On 23 Feb 2016, at 10:33, Tudor Girba <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi,

At the moment, it is used for documentation purposes in Bloc. It is part of the effort of Alex to document Bloc thoroughly. I think it is an interesting idea, in that we would have a significant case study for that can be used later as optional types information to improve static tool support. And it does not hurt at the moment.

What do you think?

Experimenting optional types is a good idea. We could have Tools to dynamically check them.
What about a separate typing model that could be used to add/remove the types annotations ?
Also, I wonder if Bloc is the good package to experiment optional types. Maybe it is not stable enough.
Cheers
Alain

please, please, please keep the scope of those experiments aside the main effort who is to have Block/Brick running as soon as possible.

Esteban

ps: … optional types… at the end, we will realise Gilad was right all this time :)

I think there is a misunderstanding.

The current annotations are there for documentation purposes. Given that Alex did an extensive pass to document Bloc, they should remain in place as they document the contracts. Documentation like this is something we should embrace for such a central piece.

That this also provides the information for a potential optional types experiment it’s a different issue, and it would not affect at all the implementation of Bloc.

I understand why it is done in the context of documentation, and I am all for good documentation.

But it really is a dangerous road to start on. It sends a weird signal, as if it is better to start adding static typing information.

The next step will be that someone suggests to start adding the same kind of annotation typing information to all arguments, next all instance variable, it can't hurt right ? Then we write tools to use that information, then we start requiring it, next we have Java with tons of boiler plate code for nothing.

Cheers,
Doru

Cheers,
Doru

On Feb 23, 2016, at 10:25 AM, Alain Plantec via Pharo-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:

From: Alain Plantec <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] [Bloc] Do we want <return: #Point> or <return: Point>
Date: February 23, 2016 at 10:23:33 AM GMT+1
To: Pharo Development List <[hidden email]>

I don’t like it too.
Alain

Le 23 févr. 2016 à 09:50, Nicolai Hess <[hidden email]> a écrit :

2016-02-23 9:47 GMT+01:00 stepharo <[hidden email]>:
Hi

I saw that something <return: #Point> or <return: Point>
I do not know why but I have the impression that <return: #Point> is better.
Because we may have code not present and still want to load the code.

I would like to know for what this is used.
I don't like it.

Stef

--
www.tudorgirba.com
www.feenk.com

"We are all great at making mistakes."

--
www.tudorgirba.com
www.feenk.com

"If you interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair,
you will end up with a messy haircut."