Andreas Raab writes:
 > > Messages usually have the arguments last. Wouldn't it be nice to have 
 > > messages that could have arguments between a phrase? 

 > No.
[...]
 > > 	aBitStream next: 40 bits
[...]
 > The above should be written as
 > 
 > 	aBitStream next: 40 "bits"

I thought the trailing no-op in the message selector was a nice idea.

Comments aren't as good as the message selector syntax. Comments get
out of date and people leave them out. If it's really worth mentioning
in a comment, that you're expecting with 40 _bits_, then it's worth
making this explict/mandatory using the method selector.

Also, the trailing no-op in the method-selector allows you to have a
similar method you invoke like this:

	aBitStream next: 40 bytes.

It looks like the main difficulty would be that the resulting language
couldn't be parsed without extra information - you'd need to know
whether or not there was a message called #next:bits to decide whether
or not "aBitStream next: 40 bits" meant ((aBitStream next: 40) bits).

--
Matthew McDonald <mafm at cs.uwa.edu.au>