On Aug 28, 2007, at 11:22 AM, Cédrick Béler wrote:

first, what solution to choose...

- proxyobject (Bert's idea + Ramon optimization)

I like this solution but maybe not as efficient, thread safe (what peaople mean by that?)

Excellent hack. Not definitive for me because having to meanings for one token is not really nice.

- scanner modification (I think Vassili's contribution...)

in this case, I like ';;' too...

+1 on Vassili's. Not sure about the token. Don't like a lot the ';;'

It's a bit confusing with ';'.

What about this ?

class  Monad m  where
    (>>=)            :: m a -> (a -> m b) -> m b
    return           :: a -> m a

monad >>= doThis >>= doThat >>= doMoreSTuff

>>= might be allright ? Big and easy to spot !

The analogy is that... the function binded to the monad does this ..

opens up the monad, then does something and then returns another 'closed' monad.

Guess what encapsulation is on objects.

We allready got that !!!!!!!!

Example:

obj myMethodA:x | myMethodB:x

A closed object receives a message.

The 'myMethodA' method opens up the object as all instance variables are accessible in the method (Just like the monad) and

and returns another closed object

which again ...

... receives a message.

Now the 'myMethodB' method opens up the object as all instance variables are accessible in the method (Just like the monad).

and returns another closed object

etc ...

With closed I mean: private instance variables encapsulated.

Well the analogies end there but I think it's still effective.

Also trying to lure some Haskell hackers :-).

There are quite some Phd powered hackers there, and I personally think that Smalltalk could win their love.

hope I didn"t miss another way...

You miss this (not related):

Is it alright to Small-talkers with grey hair to push more on functional programming, where functional programming is intended as chains of functional applications (better if pure) ? Because if the change happens you WILL see more chained applications at least as much you see the cascade. Is this alright with the more experienced guys out there ? and maybe, is this alright at all ?

I'm +1 in reading more functional applications chains.

Cédrick