[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Help-smalltalk] ZeroMQ binding

From: Vijay Mathew
Subject: Re: [Help-smalltalk] ZeroMQ binding
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 15:03:52 +0530


First of all, thanks for reviewing my code and commenting. I will
change the message names.
I used cascade so that it makes the code shorter. I used code blocks
because of by background in FP.
We can have messages that take objects. Most users of 0MQ are
C/C++/Java programmers and
these terse samples may prompt them to have a serious look at
Smalltalk. As the project makes
further progress, I will add samples that demonstrate real-world use.
(Of course, those will be elegant
than their C/C++/Java counterparts).

-- Vijay

On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 03/29/2011 05:30 AM, Vijay Mathew wrote:
>> Checked in a few samples:
> Nice!
> Just a couple of comments on the API.  You may want to rename
> #while:receiveSend: with #whileTrue:receiveSend: (or #whileTrue:respond:,
> but I'm focusing on the first keyword mostly) and add a corresponding
> #whileFalse: handler.
> In general, it seems like you're favoring a programming style with many
> cascades and blocks to handle code snippets that would have a different
> receiver.  It looks nice in your examples but (as a complete newbie in 0MQ)
> would it scale to real-world cases?
> Thanks for your work,
> Paolo
> ps: I noticed now your email addresses, and that explains your love for
> blocks ;)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]