Re: criticism of the new syntax

>> Also, most languages (Java, Python, Ruby) are
doing
>> whole-class-as-a-block, and the main objective of
the new syntax was to
>> make the language reasonable to people familiar
with those languages.
>
> I agree; but I still think we should not _enforce_
whole-class-as-a-block like 
> java does. It would seriously limit the freedom in
organizing source code.  

We do not enforce it; loose methods are permitted of course.
 Loose 
methods however do not have one level less of indentation.

>> Person >> new [
>>      <category: '...'>
>> ]
>
> So loose methods like this are permitted? Come to think
of it, there must be a 
> way to define additional methods outside the main class
definition block; 
> otherwise one of the main strength (being able to add
methods without 
> subclassing) of smalltalk just disappears   

Loose methods are done with "CLASS extend [ ... ]"
or "CLASS class 
extend [ ... ]".  The syntax I hinted that above was
thought of, but as 
I said it would be hard to implement it in the current
parser.  Maybe 
for 3.1.

> But this is still whole-class-as-a-block, and it even
add another layer of 
> indention. What I really want is being able to break up
a large class into 
> multiple files, each one defining one of more
categories.   

You can do that, even though each will be "very
indented" :-P

But in the first place, why do you want large classes? 

Paolo


_______________________________________________
help-smalltalk mailing list
help-smalltalkgnu.org

http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-smalltalk