"Richard A. O'Keefe" <ok at atlas.otago.ac.nz> wrote:
> danielv at netvision.net.il wrote:
> 	> but with your point of view =
> 	> a good caching we could get rid of #() ;) this would be fun.
> 	Which is more alien to Smalltalk and more surprising (an object that's
> 	implicitly shared with all subclass instances?! - not a shared variable,
> 	an implicitly shared *object*! that can be modified!) than {}, and
> 	semantically weaker.
> 	
> String literals are just like #() in this respect.

Yup. Except in their case, we don't have a "dynamically generated
string" contruct to replace it with...

And there are also other ways of dealing with Strings, like making their
literal versions immutable (easier to do when the parts are themselves
immutable).

Daniel