[self-interest] documentation!

David Ungar ungar at me.com
Sun Jul 24 21:57:15 UTC 2016


Yes, aCollection would help as compared to c. But what I think would be better is an explanation for do:. I think there might be one in one of the Self documents, come to think of it.
The problem with ‘aCollection’ everywhere is that it’s a lot longer to type. The environment would ideally help with that.

> On Jul 24, 2016, at 2:54 PM, Bystroushaak bystrousak at kitakitsune.org [self-interest] <self-interest at yahoogroups.com> wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> Yahoo Groups Links
> 
> 
> 




More information about the Self-interest mailing list