[Python-Dev] [OT] implicit return values (original) (raw)
Xavier Morel catch-all at masklinn.net
Fri Sep 4 08:34:44 CEST 2009
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] [OT] implicit return values
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Whether to call Py_Finalize when exiting from the child process of a fork from a spawned thread
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 3 Sep 2009, at 23:33 , Greg Ewing wrote: Xavier Morel wrote:
Methods yes (and that's one of the few Smalltalk design "features" I consider truly dumb, considering it has message cascading) Cascading is something different -- it's for sending multiple messages to the same receiver. It's not dumb to have both. I know what cascading is for. The issue is that with message cascading
- the "yourself" message, you never need to chain on self (you can
just cascade and -- if you end up needing the instance to drop down at
the end of the cascade -- sendyourself).
Chaining on self is completely redundant in smalltalk as the purpose
of this pattern is also to send a sequence of messages to the same
receiver (something message cascading already handles & guarantees).
Therefore defaulting method to self-chaining is very dumb and serves
no purpose whatsoever. It doesn't make the language easier to use,
less verbose or more practical. It just wastes return values.
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] [OT] implicit return values
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Whether to call Py_Finalize when exiting from the child process of a fork from a spawned thread
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]