Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!uflorida!mephisto!rutgers!texbell!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
Subject: Smalltalk syntax question/quibble
Message-ID: <ZR12K7Axds13@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 6 Mar 90 16:01:58 GMT
References: <147@cnam.UUCP>
Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Lines: 21

I have thought that the Smalltalk syntax for defining a new class was
a bit inconsistent with the rest of the language. I'm thinking of how
one would write a small object-oriented language, and while I like the
Smalltalk syntax, I'm thinking a more elegant syntax for creating new
classes or methods would be:

	name <- Class Subclass: instance_variables
	name Method: methodname Is: block

So the syntax for point would be like:

	Point <- Magnitude Subclass: #( 'x' 'y' ).
	Point Method: 'new' Is: [ x <- 0. y <- 0. ^self. ].
	Point Method: 'x:y:' Is: [ x0 y0 | x <- x0. y <- y0. ].
	Integer Method: '@' Is: [ y |
		p <- Point new.
		p x: self y: y.
		^p.
	].

Etcetera. What's wrong with this picture? (obviously something is)
-- 
 _--_|\  Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>.
/      \
\_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure!
      v  "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'