bystrousak at kitakitsune.org
Sun Jul 24 21:54:24 UTC 2016
I mean message signature/header (sorry, I have no idea how to call it),
eg `addAll: c`.
If it was written as `addAll: collection`, it would be much more
clearer. It would be even better if the comment contained the
information, that `collection` may be anything responding to `do:` message.
I know how the ducktyping works. My point was just that it is possible
to put more informations into the API names and talk to the programmer,
so he don't need to study whole source code.
Dne 24.7.2016 v 23:45 David Ungar ungar at me.com [self-interest] napsal(a):
> I’m not sure you get it: there is no signature, no such concept in
> Self. That’s part of what I’m trying to say. It’s a different model
> of computation.
> The concepts are more like natural language concepts. If a thing
> wants to pretend it’s like a collection, it will implement do:. It
> may only partially pretend and not implement all of collectionness.
> But that may be fine for a particular use case.
More information about the Self-interest