[Pharo-project] could we agree to remove caseOf: and caseOf:otherwise:

Stéphane Ducasse stephane.ducasse at inria.fr
Wed Feb 16 21:07:06 CET 2011


On Feb 16, 2011, at 6:12 PM, Eliot Miranda wrote:

> 
> 
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 11:17 PM, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse at inria.fr> wrote:
> But it looks like a DSL to me.
>  
> No its not.  caseOf: is valid Smalltalk.  It is another control structure defined in the library rather than by the language, just like do:, inject:into: et al. It is extremely useful in certain circumstances.  It can be (and is) optimized.  Functional languages support case statements that are conceptually similar.  caseOf: (and those of functional languages) are *much* more powerful than the switch statement of C:  caseOf: can dispatch on arbitrary values, not just integer indices; caseOf:'s selectors (the things on the left of the ->'s) can be expressions, not just constants.
>  
> So caseOf: could be moved to Cog. 
> 
> Fine.  Let me be equally pig-headed then. I'm not going to spend any more energy on this, and I'm not going to spend any more energy on Cog in Pharo.  This is ridiculous. 

Then perfect be mad at me and take all the pharoers in prison. This is the only solution. 
Since you have the power to do it and I cannot do anything about it. I let you choose if I'm a real assshole, a plain idiot
or just that I suggest something to ease our future.
what I suggest is to 
	- stop inlining caeOf so that the transition path to OPAL is easier
	- let caseOf use for VMMaker.

It would take 15 min to do that and probably 30 min to fix tools that are using caseOf: out of VMMaker.

Stef





More information about the Pharo-project mailing list