>>My second question is: Why not name the arguments in a block?
>>Okay, might be a bit of overkill, but why not? It's much closer to the
>>method syntax and there's one less rule to learn.
>>E.g.
>>
>>( 1 to: 10 ) inject: 0 into: [
>>    previous: total current: each        "named block arguments"
>>        total := total + each.
>>].

>I'm not sure if it is really possible to reduce the number of rules here.
One of the strengths of the current standard >is that blocks with the same
number of arguments are equivalent in a polymorphic sense. Thus to write

>aCollection do: [ :person | person saySomething]

>So, if names were required, we might find ourselves in an impossibly
complex web of dependencies
>between the producers and consumers of blocks that might, ultimately, be
resolved only by adding another rule:

Well, I didn't want to require it. It was meant for documentation purposes
only. And I would continue the value:value: messages. But in this way blocks
can easily by converted to methods and vice versa.

Come to think of it: The value: and value:value: messages are probably the
reason why only colons are permitted. Otherwise we had to code something
like   aCollection do: [ value: each | ... ].

No, I just want to extend the block parameter syntax for documentation
purposes and drop the vertical bar, something like this :

aCollection [ <optional name>: arg1 <optional name>: arg2 <code> ].


Reinier.