> From: Michael Lucas-Smith <ich at driftwood.darktech.org>
> I could have _sworn_ this was called #conform: aBlock ...? Maybe thats 
> just an IBM Smalltalk thing?

Well, the ANSI spec, or at least the draft that I have, calls it  
#allSatisfy:, and Squeak does have #anySatisfy:, but neither  
#conform: nor #allSatisfy: .  So it may actually be just an IBM  
Smalltalk thing, but I don't really know that much about standard  
protocols.

Incidentally, I found the ANSI spec an excellent overview of  
standard protocols, with everything collected in neat summaries.   
That does rekindle the desire for formal protocols, with protocols  
managing the message name, a separate protocol hierarchy and browser  
and even [gasp!] optional means of specifying protocols in messages.

The common syntactic means of specifying protocol (types) in  
Smalltalk extensions seem to be angle brackets,  <Integer> myInt.   
Wouldn't it be a good idea to modify the standard compiler so that it  
ignores such constructs?  That way, experiments in that direction  
could produce code that's still compilable on everybody else's  
system.

Marcel