> Well, I can understand if people want to use ":=" instead. But I still
> personally think the arrow is good - it is just one character to type
> and it is visually appealing for assignment IMHO.

My point was not that underscore is bad but that arrow is.
because we have to tweak fonts, we do not have a clear mapping
sometimes arrow sometimes _

> Not sure what you mean.
I mean that I started to used the arrow for my book and then I decide 
to use a slighty
bigger fonts for kids and I got an underscore.....Imagine my 
frustration to change everything
but I'm certainly too stupid because I should have just tweak all the 
fonts (you know the normal stuff
that you should do if you are in a cool open-source movement, the do it 
syndrome).

> I would also like to know what you meant with "we are just having fun
> and making nothing real"? Is that a reference to my first proposal of a
> Vision? Just curious.

No I like you proposal.

This is that I'm fed up that we do not pay attention to the view that 
we give to the outside.
I think that squeak offers an inconsistent model because of the arrow 
for the
reasons I enunced. I think that the arrow glyph is one of this legacy 
of a time where having funny bitmap was cool because they run only on 
expensive device and screens. But now it would be good to realize that 
this is not
fun or ALL the fonts should be coherent and your answer about the fact 
that you use celeste makes me feeling sad. I have the impression that 
we are trapped in our nice cocoon (the image).

Stef

>
> regards, Göran
>