Re: [Help-smalltalk] criticism of the new syntax

[Paolo Bonzini]

> > Also, most languages (Java, Python, Ruby) are doing
> > whole-class-as-a-block, and the main objective of the new syntax was to
> > make the language reasonable to people familiar with those languages.
>
> I agree; but I still think we should not _enforce_ whole-class-as-a-block like 
> java does. It would seriously limit the freedom in organizing source code.  

We do not enforce it; loose methods are permitted of course.  Loose 
methods however do not have one level less of indentation.

> > Person >> new [
> >      <category: '...'>
> > ]
>
> So loose methods like this are permitted? Come to think of it, there must be a 
> way to define additional methods outside the main class definition block; 
> otherwise one of the main strength (being able to add methods without 
> subclassing) of smalltalk just disappears :)  

Loose methods are done with "CLASS extend [ ... ]" or "CLASS class 
extend [ ... ]".  The syntax I hinted that above was thought of, but as 
I said it would be hard to implement it in the current parser.  Maybe 
for 3.1.

> But this is still whole-class-as-a-block, and it even add another layer of 
> indention. What I really want is being able to break up a large class into 
> multiple files, each one defining one of more categories.   

You can do that, even though each will be "very indented" :-P

But in the first place, why do you want large classes? :-)

Paolo