> > Why, I'd also change Number >># positive.  See if that method offends your
> > mathematical sensabilities!
> 
> It is unfortunate that positive means non-negative, but this wart
> dates back to early Smalltalk and is documented in Goldberg and
> Robson, and I think quite a few people might get hurt here.  On the
> other hand, Array2D is not part of the language as given in the
> "purple book," hence we might have a touch more liberty here.
> 
> Look, I'm not trying to start a war, and I did not advocate this
> position frivolously.  I'm not interested in trying to find out
> who I can agitate and to what degree.  I really and truly desire
> a group consensus on this matter.  I got burned with this based
> on my experience with mathematics and twenty or so other program-
> ming languages, so maybe... just perhaps... I might have a point.

I know about this wart, having seen peoply bit by it a few times
(mixed metaphor).  The reason I raise this point, is as a focus for
the direction of Squeak.  That is, how can Squeak move into the future
without dragging it's feet in the past.  Is anyone interested in a new
code base -- Same Smalltalk-80 syntax, but clean up all of the warts and all
out of the code base?

-- Mike Klein