[Pharo-project] could we agree to remove caseOf: and caseOf:otherwise:
eliot.miranda at gmail.com
Wed Feb 16 21:35:43 CET 2011
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Stéphane Ducasse <
stephane.ducasse at inria.fr> wrote:
> yes now do not think that I'm implying that you are not able to implement a
> Now we have something else to do that dealing with the optimisation of a
> stupid method.
> This is all my point.
> Let us focus on the real problems. eliot is crying for caseOf: but we have
> 3 users.
Did you know that there are several uses of caseOf: in the Opal compiler?
Do you have such an encyclopaedic knowledge of all the packages ever
written in Pharo and Squeak that you know* you have only 3 users? Of course
you don't. You are being ridiculous.
> On Feb 16, 2011, at 9:23 PM, Marcus Denker wrote:
> > Hi,
> > What about postponing this dicussion to the week of the 7th of march?
> This will be far easier...
> > (and I really did not have the energy to follow this discussion. Most of
> the emails in this thread I did
> > not read).
> > Marcus
> > On Feb 16, 2011, at 12:12 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
> >> 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
> > --
> > Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de
> > INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Pharo-project