[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: LFM + LFSP = LFE?
But does anyone actually do this? All I've ever seen is the equivalent of:
/bar/ ifTrue: foo.
[/bar/ is not legal ST, of course.] I agree that having the control
constructs be part of the language is a big win. A bigger issue is what's
the most effective way to do that. ST does it by using blocks as objects;
lisp/scheme do it using macros. ST ties you to a specific operational
model (single dispatch OO); lisp doesn't. It's pretty trivial to implement
ST-style OO in lisp; how easy is it to implement lisp in ST?
> Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 09:57:21 -0600
> From: David Farber <email@example.com>
> At 12:48 AM 6/16/2003 -0700, Ryan Davis wrote:
> >> -- perlish options to put keywords in different places
> >> for conditionals (e.g. "foo() if /bar/")
> >Personally, I like this. It allows for more English like constructs.
> >But that is just my personal taste. If I could get rid of it, it would
> >make my job of converting the ruby grammar easier. :)
> Smalltalk, of course, allows you to do this without any extra syntax--one of the nice benefits of having the control constructs written /in/ the languge itself.
> David Farber