From: Trans <transfire@...>
Date: 2006-10-05T22:35:12+09:00
Subject: Re: dynamically changing superclass/mixins


Paul Battley wrote:
> Clippy says, 'It looks like you're being sarcastic!' (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

A tinge perhaps, but not meant in a mean way. Just pointing out what I
meant by the lack of blocks.

> It doesn't look much like Ruby, granted, but it *does* tie in with the
> rest of Io. Consider if/else:
>
>   if(cond, writeln("aye"), writeln("nay"))
>
> Being able to pass multiple 'blocks' to a method facilitates things
> like the above, which aren't possible with Ruby's single-block
> approach.

I agree. Multiple blocks are nice, but it could be be done with a block
notation too if one wanted:

   if(cond) {writeln("aye")} {writeln("nay")}

Hmm... does Io support currying? Then:

   if(cond)(writeln("aye"))(writeln("nay"))

wouldn't be so bad actually.

> Io's an interesting language.

I can agree. I'm just very asthetically guided with my initial contact
with things. Some of the code examples had me feeling a bit "lispy".
Camelcase too is something I'm no longer fond. I guess maybe I've just
gotten very used to the over all look of Ruby.

But I argee, Io's a tempting lanugage.

T.