lack of contributors

[Waldemar Kornewald]

Brian Rice wrote:
>> I just see that there are a few issues, but no syntax is perfect:
>>
>> (x < 5) /\ (x > 9) ifTrue: [...].
>> vs
>> (x < 5) \/ [x > 9] ifTrue: [...].
>>
>> and
>>
>> x < 5 ifTrue: [...].
>> vs
>> [x < 5] whileTrue: [...].
>> ...
> 
> Brackets to denote lazy / repeatable evaluation is some kind of  
> problem? Why?

It's something you have to become aware of and it feels inconsistent 
(though it's not). Maybe it's just me expecting the language to be 
intelligent enough to know when lazy evaluation is appropriate. I want 
the language to help me, not stay in its static cage.
BTW, isn't that part of Zoku's ideas?

I forgot to mention that if Slate should really support a "scripting 
language" mode then it's probably good to support normal text editors 
(UIs are not available very often). This would speak for making Slate 
more readable even at the ASCII level (without going too far away from 
Smalltalk's message syntax, but we have discussed this already...).

> I will gratuitously comment that Slate can (right now) do:
> 
> if: i < 42 then: []
> if: i < 42 then: [] else: []
> 
> and "[] until: []" / "[] while: []"

I like this more than the current style because it sounds more like a 
sentence.

Loops should probably better look like this:
while: [] do: []
until: [] do: []

>>> Uh, that is not the purpose of the infogami, and I am not going to  
>>> do  that. If anything, the infogami was started at least partly  
>>> because  the wiki was unavailable. In fact, I am going to stay  
>>> away from it  and let it be user-driven.
>> I would have placed it on the wiki, but I still don't have access  
>> to tunes.org and an IBM site. My IP range (89.*) seems to be  
>> blocked (I switched to a new ISP...). Maybe I can get around this  
>> somehow.
> 
> It's not blocked by the wiki.

I can't reach the tunes.org and slate.tunes.org servers in general and I 
don't know who to contact to solve this issue. My ISP can't help 
me...they just said that it seems that this is a new IP range that a few 
routers are still blocking (didn't know that this can happen at all).

> Even so, try to fix the technical access problem, not pollute someone  
> else's work.

Agreed. I'll use an anonymizer. That seems to work for the time being.

Bye,
Waldemar