Thanks this was the smell I got reading the code (feeling like in 
Scheme).

> "The
> Early History of Smalltalk" by Alan Kay:
I should reread it.

Stef
On Tuesday, June 10, 2003, at 03:34 AM, Jecel Assumpcao Jr wrote:

> On Monday 09 June 2003 17:37, Stephane Ducasse wrote:
>> Now I have some questions:
>> 	- why the turtle has primitives and cannot simply be defined in
>> ST-72
>
> They could, but the performance would not be acceptable. Remember that
> as a Logo successor Turtle Graphics had to be a very usable part of the
> language.
>
>>       - I thought that to was to create classes, but the fils AllDefs
>> use it to for read, print.... I'm confused. I will have to reread the
>> bootstrap
>
> I'll quote the bottom of page 20 (p. 78 in the proceedings) of "The
> Early History of Smalltalk" by Alan Kay:
>
>     One of the styles retained from Smalltalk-71 was the comingling of
>     function and class ideas. In other works [should be words?],
>     Smalltalk-72 classes looked like and could be used as functions, 
> but
>     it was easy to produce and instance (a kind of closure) by using 
> the
>     object ISNEW. Thus, factorial could be written "extensionally" as:
>
>           to fact n (^if :n=0 then 1 else n*fact n-1)
>
>     or "intensionally", as part of class integer:
>
>           (.... %! ?(^:n=0 ?(1) (n-1)! )
>
>     Of course, the whole idea of Smalltalk (and OOP in general) is to
>     define everything intensionally. And this was the direction of
>     movement as we learned how to program in the new style.
>
> I imagine that "read" and "print" (and "to" itself) represent the early
> style.
>
> -- Jecel
>