Range>>at: patch

[Ken Causey]

Cool.  Shortly after starting this thread Lee pointed out on IRC that it
wasn't really appropriate due to the non-mono-objectiveness of Slate,
which I suspected all along.  And it occurred to me then that I should
have simply used the dispatch signature (which I called specification at
the time).

Now if I can just remember that and not let habit take over...

Ken

On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 18:32, Brian T. Rice wrote:
> Just use the Dispatch signature: _@(Range traits) at: n or whatever. In any 
> case, this is in keeping with the original idea of Smalltalk that you take a 
> syntax pattern and define an implementation for it.
> 
> Ken Causey <ken at kencausey.com> said:
> 
> > P. S. Is the usual Smalltalk form that I used in the subject
> > appropriate?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : /archives/slate/attachments/20040804/df13734d/attachment.pgp