Wednesday, August 30, 2006

[|] == Powered by Smalltalk

In reference to the new suggested smalltalk logo [|].

I like it and given my recent actitities, it's nice it has some similarities to the emoticon for robot ( [:|]. ).

My only question is how to search for it in google or any of the others ?


Blogger Patrick Mueller said...

Absolutely a sin, not taking into account the google-ability.

Of course, it's not like you can google the hacker emblem, at all. This one, at least, is text.

I'm embarassed to admit that I'm not sure what the implication of the fragment is. It's been too long. A block taking no arguments, implicitly returning self? I'm about 110% sure I've never used this as an idiom before. But I'm an old man, who knows.

Kent's "will subclass nil for bandwith" still seems kewl to me.

2:36 AM  
Blogger John Duimovich said...

[|] is actually invalid Smalltalk syntax

to make it work you'd need to add another | -> [||] which means a no arg block, no temps, and it returns nil if you send #value to it. No reason you could not change the grammer to make the | ok by itself, as thats how you delimit block arguments from temps so you could make this mean a zero args block.

Sadly, the Robot [:|] is invalid too (argument needs a name) but
[:o|] would be ok. A one arg block, which returns nil .

11:19 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home