Dot notation and a crazy idea

Patrick Logan patrickl at gemstone.com
Tue Mar 23 20:30:00 UTC 1999


> While I consider the differences between "a[x]" and "a at: i" quite
> minor, I always wanted to make the assignment in "at:put:" more
> explicit, something like "(a at: i) := x" for example. "a[1] := x"
> helps here, but unfortunately introduces more syntax for only this
> special case.  Is there any way to generalize this?  For example,
> "at::=" could be a valid keyword message as could "a:=" (to use
> "self a := 1" instead of "self a: 1").
> 
> Anymore strange ideas anyone?

at:put: still greases my skids just fine, thanks. ;^/

I think Smalltalk is simple and readable and so on. Syntax tweaks
aren't going to appeal to me. There are bigger problems to solve.

-- 
Patrick Logan                 mailto:patrickl at gemstone.com
Voice 503-533-3365            Fax   503-629-8556
Gemstone Systems, Inc         http://www.gemstone.com





More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list