[squeak-dev] keeping arrow for assignment operator

> I am planning to upgrade the version of Squeak I am using (Squeak
> 3.8.1 on Linux) to 3.10.
>
> I realize that the arrow for the assignment operator has been
> deprecated and is displayed as an underscore in Squeak 3.9 or later.
> So before I release my open source project I will need to conform
> to using ':=' for assignment.
> But I rather like using the arrow operator because it is easy to read
> and I won't be releasing my open source project for some time.
> So, until I release it, I would like to continue using the arrow and
> having
> it displayed as an arrow.
>

> Juan Vuletich wrote:
>>
>>
>> There's not a real consensus in this area. Many people (me included)
>> really prefer the left arrow for assignment and will not accept  
>> others
>> to prevent us from doing so. Please don't promise that. Switch to :=
>> only if you want.
>
> I usually agree with what you write, but this is simply wrong.  
> There is
> not *unanimous* consensus that left-arrow should be deprecated, but  
> when
> has there ever been, in the Squeak community?  However, there is
> certainly a consensus.  You're free to use an old/modified Squeak that
> support underscore-assignment-rendered-as-an-arrow, but the community
> has clearly decided otherwise (please don't make me dig for  
> references,
> but I will if I have to).
>
> You shouldn't muddy the waters for Squeak newcomers who haven't
> experienced the history first-hand.  Underscore assignment is on the  
> way
> out.  Period.
>
> I like the look of the left-arrow myself, but there's no reason that a
> pretty-printer can't render it that way; unfortunately nobody has
> stepped up to make that a reality.  On the other hand, I look  
> forward to
> when underscore-assignment is not only deprecated, but completely
> disallowed, so that I can, for example, program OpenGL in Squeak using
> identical constant names (eg: GL_COLOR_BUFFER_BIT instead of
> GLColorBufferBit).
>
> Cheers,
> Josh

> Juan Vuletich wrote:
>  
>> There's not a real consensus in this area. Many people (me included)
>> really prefer the left arrow for assignment and will not accept others
>> to prevent us from doing so. Please don't promise that. Switch to :=
>> only if you want.
>>    
>
> I usually agree with what you write, but this is simply wrong.  There is
> not *unanimous* consensus that left-arrow should be deprecated, but when
> has there ever been, in the Squeak community?  However, there is
> certainly a consensus.  You're free to use an old/modified Squeak that
> support underscore-assignment-rendered-as-an-arrow, but the community
> has clearly decided otherwise (please don't make me dig for references,
> but I will if I have to).
>
>  

> I like the look of the left-arrow myself, but there's no reason that a
> pretty-printer can't render it that way; unfortunately nobody has
> stepped up to make that a reality.  On the other hand, I look forward to
> when underscore-assignment is not only deprecated, but completely
> disallowed, so that I can, for example, program OpenGL in Squeak using
> identical constant names (eg: GL_COLOR_BUFFER_BIT instead of
> GLColorBufferBit).
>
> Cheers,
> Josh
>
>  

> Joshua Gargus wrote:
>> Juan Vuletich wrote:
>>
>>> There's not a real consensus in this area. Many people (me included)
>>> really prefer the left arrow for assignment and will not accept others
>>> to prevent us from doing so. Please don't promise that. Switch to :=
>>> only if you want.
>>>
>>
>> I usually agree with what you write, but this is simply wrong.  There is
>> not *unanimous* consensus that left-arrow should be deprecated, but when
>> has there ever been, in the Squeak community?  However, there is
>> certainly a consensus.  You're free to use an old/modified Squeak that
>> support underscore-assignment-rendered-as-an-arrow, but the community
>> has clearly decided otherwise (please don't make me dig for references,
>> but I will if I have to).
>>
> This community doesn't even have a consensus on the way to make decisions.
> These are not my words, but they say what I think: "Historically,
> decisions have been made by the people screaming the loudest or the
> longest. We need to work out a way to fix this and to come to a process by
> which we can make decisions that are acceptable to the community at
> large." Only when there is a process set up to make decisions, and it is
> applied to issues like this, you can say there is consensus. This has not
> happened yet. And I do really hope it will happen this year.
>
>> You shouldn't muddy the waters for Squeak newcomers who haven't
>> experienced the history first-hand.  Underscore assignment is on the way
>> out.  Period.
>>
>
> No it is not. You have no authority to say so. Perhaps the board has it.
> But not you. I'm sorry.
>
>> I like the look of the left-arrow myself, but there's no reason that a
>> pretty-printer can't render it that way; unfortunately nobody has
>> stepped up to make that a reality.  On the other hand, I look forward to
>> when underscore-assignment is not only deprecated, but completely
>> disallowed, so that I can, for example, program OpenGL in Squeak using
>> identical constant names (eg: GL_COLOR_BUFFER_BIT instead of
>> GLColorBufferBit).
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Josh
>>
>>
> Cheers,
> Juan Vuletich
>

> Joshua Gargus wrote:
>> Juan Vuletich wrote:
>>  
>>> There's not a real consensus in this area. Many people (me included)
>>> really prefer the left arrow for assignment and will not accept others
>>> to prevent us from doing so. Please don't promise that. Switch to :=
>>> only if you want.
>>>    
>>
>> I usually agree with what you write, but this is simply wrong.  There is
>> not *unanimous* consensus that left-arrow should be deprecated, but when
>> has there ever been, in the Squeak community?  However, there is
>> certainly a consensus.  You're free to use an old/modified Squeak that
>> support underscore-assignment-rendered-as-an-arrow, but the community
>> has clearly decided otherwise (please don't make me dig for references,
>> but I will if I have to).
>>  
> This community doesn't even have a consensus on the way to make
> decisions. These are not my words, but they say what I think:
> "Historically, decisions have been made by the people screaming the
> loudest or the longest. We need to work out a way to fix this and to
> come to a process by which we can make decisions that are acceptable
> to the community at large."

>
>> I like the look of the left-arrow myself, but there's no reason that a
>> pretty-printer can't render it that way; unfortunately nobody has
>> stepped up to make that a reality.  On the other hand, I look forward to
>> when underscore-assignment is not only deprecated, but completely
>> disallowed, so that I can, for example, program OpenGL in Squeak using
>> identical constant names (eg: GL_COLOR_BUFFER_BIT instead of
>> GLColorBufferBit).
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Josh
>>
>>  
> Cheers,
> Juan Vuletich
>

> Joshua Gargus <schwa <at> fastmail.us> writes:
>
>> we could have a plebiscite on some issues like this.  The whole
>> community could vote "yes", "no", and "don't care" to this and other
>> questions, and the issue would be settled once and for all.  I  
>> could be
>> wrong, but I think that you'd be unhappy with the result for this
>> particular question
>>
>
> I strongly prefer leftArrow for expressivity, readability...
> ...and for avoiding stupid errors like myTemp = 2.
>
> But I consider external world reasons stronger:
> - external fonts
> - external encoding
> - other dialects
>
> The underscore statu quo is just crazy.
> I would vote for suppression from modern Squeak, sorry Juan...
>
>

> Juan Vuletich wrote:
> >This community doesn't even have a consensus on the way to make
> >decisions. These are not my words, but they say what I think:
> >"Historically, decisions have been made by the people screaming the
> >loudest or the longest. We need to work out a way to fix this and to
> >come to a process by which we can make decisions that are acceptable to
> >the community at large." Only when there is a process set up to make
> >decisions, and it is applied to issues like this, you can say there is
> >consensus. This has not happened yet. And I do really hope it will
> >happen this year.
>
> Me too. I'll even go out on a limp here and attempt to make a proposal:
> I think that in most situations both sides of an issue honestly believe
> that their opinion is the majority opinion. And that both sides cannot
> possibly fathom the idea that their view might be a vanishingly small
> minority opinion, where the opposing party pretty much sees that as a given.
>
> So perhaps a starting point is to try to replace screaming with getting
> a better picture about what the opinions on an issue really are. In
> other words, for potentially controversial issues we (the board) could
> organize a poll if there is an actionable proposal on the table. The
> board could then use the result of the poll as a guide to see whether to
> approve the proposal or not.
>
> How do people feel about this? Would this be an acceptable way to come
> to a conclusion? The idea is that someone *will* make a decision (the
> board) but only if there is a concrete proposal on the table which
> necessitates the decision, guided by the community opinion. It doesn't
> mean that all proposals get polled but for the controversial ones I
> think this could really help both sides understand whether or not the
> (mostly silent) majority agrees with them or not.

> Juan Vuletich wrote:
>> This community doesn't even have a consensus on the way to make  
>> decisions. These are not my words, but they say what I think:  
>> "Historically, decisions have been made by the people screaming the  
>> loudest or the longest. We need to work out a way to fix this and  
>> to come to a process by which we can make decisions that are  
>> acceptable to the community at large." Only when there is a process  
>> set up to make decisions, and it is applied to issues like this,  
>> you can say there is consensus. This has not happened yet. And I do  
>> really hope it will happen this year.
>
> Me too. I'll even go out on a limp here and attempt to make a  
> proposal: I think that in most situations both sides of an issue  
> honestly believe that their opinion is the majority opinion. And  
> that both sides cannot possibly fathom the idea that their view  
> might be a vanishingly small minority opinion, where the opposing  
> party pretty much sees that as a given.
>
> So perhaps a starting point is to try to replace screaming with  
> getting a better picture about what the opinions on an issue really  
> are. In other words, for potentially controversial issues we (the  
> board) could organize a poll if there is an actionable proposal on  
> the table. The board could then use the result of the poll as a  
> guide to see whether to approve the proposal or not.
>
> How do people feel about this? Would this be an acceptable way to  
> come to a conclusion? The idea is that someone *will* make a  
> decision (the board) but only if there is a concrete proposal on the  
> table which necessitates the decision, guided by the community  
> opinion. It doesn't mean that all proposals get polled but for the  
> controversial ones I think this could really help both sides  
> understand whether or not the (mostly silent) majority agrees with  
> them or not.
>
> Cheers,
>  - Andreas
>

> Joshua Gargus wrote:
>> Juan Vuletich wrote:
>>  
>>> There's not a real consensus in this area. Many people (me included)
>>> really prefer the left arrow for assignment and will not accept others
>>> to prevent us from doing so. Please don't promise that. Switch to :=
>>> only if you want.
>>>    
>>
>> I usually agree with what you write, but this is simply wrong.  There is
>> not *unanimous* consensus that left-arrow should be deprecated, but when
>> has there ever been, in the Squeak community?  However, there is
>> certainly a consensus.  You're free to use an old/modified Squeak that
>> support underscore-assignment-rendered-as-an-arrow, but the community
>> has clearly decided otherwise (please don't make me dig for references,
>> but I will if I have to).
>>
>>  
> This community doesn't even have a consensus on the way to make
> decisions. These are not my words, but they say what I think:
> "Historically, decisions have been made by the people screaming the
> loudest or the longest. We need to work out a way to fix this and to
> come to a process by which we can make decisions that are acceptable to
> the community at large." Only when there is a process set up to make
> decisions, and it is applied to issues like this, you can say there is
> consensus. This has not happened yet. And I do really hope it will
> happen this year.
>
>> You shouldn't muddy the waters for Squeak newcomers who haven't
>> experienced the history first-hand.  Underscore assignment is on the way
>> out.  Period.
>>  
>
> No it is not. You have no authority to say so. Perhaps the board has it.
> But not you. I'm sorry.
>
>> I like the look of the left-arrow myself, but there's no reason that a
>> pretty-printer can't render it that way; unfortunately nobody has
>> stepped up to make that a reality.  On the other hand, I look forward to
>> when underscore-assignment is not only deprecated, but completely
>> disallowed, so that I can, for example, program OpenGL in Squeak using
>> identical constant names (eg: GL_COLOR_BUFFER_BIT instead of
>> GLColorBufferBit).
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Josh
>>
>>  
> Cheers,
> Juan Vuletich
>

> So perhaps a starting point is to try to replace screaming with getting
> a better picture about what the opinions on an issue really are. In
> other words, for potentially controversial issues we (the board) could
> organize a poll if there is an actionable proposal on the table. The
> board could then use the result of the poll as a guide to see whether to
> approve the proposal or not.
>
> How do people feel about this? Would this be an acceptable way to come
> to a conclusion? The idea is that someone *will* make a decision (the
> board) but only if there is a concrete proposal on the table which
> necessitates the decision, guided by the community opinion. It doesn't
> mean that all proposals get polled but for the controversial ones I
> think this could really help both sides understand whether or not the
> (mostly silent) majority agrees with them or not.

> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [squeak-dev] Re: keeping arrow for assignment operator
> Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 20:01:18 +0000
>
> If, as Bert implied in the other "left arrow related" thread, Shout
> can render the := as a left arrow, then we get the best of both
> worlds, no?
>
> Problem is that I've never seen this behaviour. Can anybody verify
> whether it's actually true?

> Cheers,
> Simon
>
> On 12 Mar 2009, at 19:50, nicolas cellier wrote:
>
> > Joshua Gargus <schwa <at> fastmail.us> writes:
> >
> >> we could have a plebiscite on some issues like this. The whole
> >> community could vote "yes", "no", and "don't care" to this and other
> >> questions, and the issue would be settled once and for all. I
> >> could be
> >> wrong, but I think that you'd be unhappy with the result for this
> >> particular question
> >>
> >
> > I strongly prefer leftArrow for expressivity, readability...
> > ...and for avoiding stupid errors like myTemp = 2.
> >
> > But I consider external world reasons stronger:
> > - external fonts
> > - external encoding
> > - other dialects
> >
> > The underscore statu quo is just crazy.
> > I would vote for suppression from modern Squeak, sorry Juan...
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Consider your responsibility to the environment - think before you print!
>
> ******************************************************************************************************************************************
> This email is from Pinesoft Limited. Its contents are confidential to the intended recipient(s) at the email address(es) to which it has been addressed. It may not be disclosed to or used by anyone other than the addressee(s), nor may it be copied in anyway. If received in error, please contact the sender, then delete it from your system. Although this email and attachments are believed to be free of virus, or any other defect which might affect any computer or IT system into which they are received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that they are virus free and no responsibility is accepted by Pinesoft for any loss or damage arising in any way from receipt or use thereof. *******************************************************************************************************************************************
>
>
> Pinesoft Limited are registered in England, Registered number: 2914825. Registered office: 266-268 High Street, Waltham Cross, Herts, EN8 7EA
>

> Juan Vuletich wrote:
>> This community doesn't even have a consensus on the way to make
>> decisions. These are not my words, but they say what I think:
>> "Historically, decisions have been made by the people screaming the
>> loudest or the longest. We need to work out a way to fix this and to
>> come to a process by which we can make decisions that are acceptable
>> to the community at large." Only when there is a process set up to
>> make decisions, and it is applied to issues like this, you can say
>> there is consensus. This has not happened yet. And I do really hope
>> it will happen this year.
>
> Me too. I'll even go out on a limp here and attempt to make a
> proposal: I think that in most situations both sides of an issue
> honestly believe that their opinion is the majority opinion. And that
> both sides cannot possibly fathom the idea that their view might be a
> vanishingly small minority opinion, where the opposing party pretty
> much sees that as a given.
>
> So perhaps a starting point is to try to replace screaming with
> getting a better picture about what the opinions on an issue really
> are. In other words, for potentially controversial issues we (the
> board) could organize a poll if there is an actionable proposal on the
> table. The board could then use the result of the poll as a guide to
> see whether to approve the proposal or not.
>
> How do people feel about this? Would this be an acceptable way to come
> to a conclusion? The idea is that someone *will* make a decision (the
> board) but only if there is a concrete proposal on the table which
> necessitates the decision, guided by the community opinion. It doesn't
> mean that all proposals get polled but for the controversial ones I
> think this could really help both sides understand whether or not the
> (mostly silent) majority agrees with them or not.
>
> Cheers,
>   - Andreas
>
>
>

>
>
> Para nque te calentas Juan ?
> No vale la pena gritar cuando nadie escucha...
>
> Edgar
>
> P.S. Si tuviera tiempo que no tengo, me dedicaria mas a Morphic 3.0
>
>