[Grace-core] Minutes of Teleconference 2012.01.10-11

[James Noble]

On 12/01/2012, at 10:00 AM, Andrew P. Black wrote:

> Funny ...
> 
> Having looked at James'e email, I was going to say that I now realize why the news have to be there, and I'm happy with the existing syntax.

great! --- or bother!  (great that you were happy, bother that you're not) 

> I could live with moving the superclass clause outside the braces, but would like to see it connected to the brace expression with an operation, because I want to see think about class expressions, not class declarations, so I want class-valued denotations.

umm, why?
I don't mean to be snide - what's the example, what's the need

>  In fact, now that classes don't magically create types, I think that we should go back to using def for class decls.
> 
> 	def myclass = class { ... }
> 
> Not sure how this works with the parameterized stuff, though.

right, where does the constructor method name & arguments go?

> 
> So 
> 	<parentObject> subobject { new stuff }
> 
> or
> 	{ new stuff } extends <parentObject>
> 
> work for me, but not what Kim is suggesting, because it doesn't give me a way of writing a class expression.

I'm still not keen on the generic "objects extends" operator you have here.



> The second new in Kim's example is not redundant, because the class has to inherit from and object, and the object that it inherits from is NOT StackClass, but StackClass.new(bottom), or maybe color.blue, or whatever.

right.

> To summarize: the syntax should follow the semantics, and not be something arbitrary because we like or dislike some existing language.  

sure...

J