"Andreas Raab" <Andreas.Raab at gmx.de> wrote:
	Just two little notes on your message: a) I never claimed to solve
	*your* problems as you seem to be implying. I solved a problem that I
	have (and no amount of theoretical discussion will change this).

I don't see how anything I wrote can read read as implying that.
Let me rephrase this:
    MY hinges aren't squeaking so I don't feel YOUR need for oil.
Let me rephrase that:
    Evidently you are facing problems I haven't got and can't even really
    imagine.  This makes MY failure to see them as useless unsurprising
    and I am warning everyone of this.

	b) Yes, I know this is Smalltalk but I don't give the least bit.
	If I want to do an experiment I'll do it ;-) It's your right to
	hate it or love it, but *please* don't start telling me that I
	must not do any experiments just because "This is Smalltalk".

Why do you accuse me of this?  I have never in my LIFE said, written,
whistled, or hummed anything which could be taken by any reasonable
person as even an attempt to tell you not to conduct any experiment at all.

There wouldn't be any point.  

You are being unfair.  The reason why *I* don't want this in the language
(you can do whatever you want to your own image; it's yours after all)
is *not* "This is Smalltalk" but "THE IDEA CREATES MORE PROBLEMS AND
INCONSISTENCIES THAN IT REMOVES."

And that's not just a bare assertion, I backed it up with arguments.

Experiment all you want to (subject to the approval of your local ethics
committee if it involves living organisms, of course).

What kind of Squeak code involves so many updates that the notational
overhead of writing "x := x += y" compared with "x += y" is a serious
barrier to getting things done?