Hi daniel

I send it into the mailing list too becuase this is important

>From a language design perspective

#() is necessary because it is compiled statically and cannot not be
simulated by other construct. Storing #() in Stack frame is not really goo
but this is an implementation aspect.

#{} is not necessary because this is shortcut macro-expansion for Array new
add: ....

So why having only this one. There is two ways:
    or you have a way to describe macro-expansion like in Scheme where you
    can define any macro in a clear way (you know the semantic of the stuff

    or we remove it because why not having
        {{}} for Set new add:
        {#[]} for OrderedCollection new....Because I use more
                OrderedCollection than array

Removing would simply the parser, compiler, Object simpler the printer
printer the VM, the bytes code emitter, then Squeak would be a bit more
standard but this is not the most important point. Why can I send the
message caseOf: to ___any Object___ berk!!!!


I'm pretty sure that I can destroy the semantics prevservation of certain
refactoring (I did it for ObjectStudio RB because OS has this &(*&*&(
construct too). The parser of Rb in Squeak has to e more complex than the
one of VW because of the expressions inside {}....

And it would avoid to have people writing,
(I saw that in indsutrial code people wrote __huge__

{
{,.n,mnm, } {knlkj lk jjkl with block everywhere}
{,.n,mnm, } {knlkj lk jjkl with block everywhere}
{,.n,mnm, } {knlkj lk jjkl with block everywhere}
{,.n,mnm, } {knlkj lk jjkl with block everywhere}
{,.n,mnm, } {knlkj lk jjkl with block everywhere}
}

So I hope that I convince you. I will try to came up with a change ste that
REMOVE this anthrax from Squeak!!!


Stef