Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!daemon
Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
From: thomson@hub.toronto.edu (Brian Thomson)
Subject: Re: Smalltalk syntax question/quibble
Message-ID: <9003071536.AA17270@beaches.hub.toronto.edu>
Sender: <daemon>
Organization: University of Toronto
References: <147@cnam.UUCP> <ZR12K7Axds13@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 7 Mar 90 15:39:32 GMT
Lines: 32

In article <ZR12K7Axds13@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
>I have thought that the Smalltalk syntax for defining a new class was
>a bit inconsistent with the rest of the language. 
>
...
>	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.
>	].
>
For starters, those method bodies are compiled in the immediate execution
environment.  You have to pass a string, not a block, so the compiler
can compile them in the context of the newly created class.

Other than that, this doesn't seem to be a very great departure.
You are doing more or less what Smalltalk already does, except that
you are ignoring (and, I presume, defaulting) a lot of other information
that Smalltalk lets you provide, eg.:

Subclass: variables
	^self subclass: (Symbol new: 0)	"Subclass name not known"
	     instanceVariableNames: variables
	     classVariableNames: nil
	     poolDictionaries: nil
	     category: 'NoCategory'.
-- 
		    Brian Thomson,	    CSRI Univ. of Toronto
		    utcsri!uthub!thomson, thomson@hub.toronto.edu