[Cuis-dev] >> notation

[Martin McClure]

Hi Mark,

You and Hernán are both correct. Foo>>bar or Foo class >> bar /is/ just 
notation seen in documentation, and Foo >> #bar /is/ (in some Smalltalk 
dialects) a valid message send.

I'm not sure where the notation originated -- it seemed to just be there 
wherever people needed to discuss Smalltalk in plain text. I'm pretty 
sure it was firmly established by the mid-80s when I started using 
Smalltalk.

I long thought that "class >> selector" was a contraction of "class > 
protocol > selector" (protocol was the term used for method category in 
the original Smalltalk-80 browsers). But that may be just my imagination.

For many years there were no methods for the selector #'>>', but 
eventually some dialects added a method for it, as Hernán indicated.

Regards,
-Martin


On 8/1/24 07:54, Mark Volkmann via Cuis-dev wrote:
> I understand that
>
> Foo>>bar
>
> is not valid Smalltalk syntax and is just notation seen in 
> documentation that means bar is a method in the class Foo.
> Can I assume that bar is an instance method and not a class method?
> Is there a different notation for class methods?
>
> -- 
> R. Mark Volkmann
> Object Computing, Inc.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cuis.st/mailman/archives/cuis-dev/attachments/20240801/e64e00ea/attachment.htm>