Stef,
Very true, #on:do: is not syntax, BUT, it looks that way to the casual observer, which might be the point of the question. If I decide that it really should be #on:DO:, I can make that addition in seconds. {} involves changing the compiler, right? Yes, it can be done, but it requires more than just taking advantage of message passing.
James, am I helping at all?
Bill
________________________________________
From:
[hidden email] [
[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Stéphane Ducasse [
[hidden email]]
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 4:28 PM
To:
[hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] New features ...
On Dec 23, 2010, at 10:08 PM, James Ladd wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> From what I understand of Smalltalk new language constructs can be added as long as they
> fit in with the "message passing" scheme/principle.
>
> Since the release of Smalltalk-80 I think some new constructs have been added and I need an
> example for a piece I am writing.
>
> Can someone tell me what syntactical construct was added since Blue Book - Smalltalk-80 ?
>
> I think "on:do:" was, but Im not sure.
not on:do:
this is just exception handling and this does not change the syntax
{ } did.
Stef
>
> Rgs, James.
Locked
