>> Any comments? Does anyone see a problem with the annotations itself  
>> or the implementation?
> 
> I'd very much like to see method annotations in Squeak. However, why  
> not use an implementation that's compatible with VW's pragmas?  AFAICT, 
> the VW syntax is a superset of the Tweak syntax, and it has a  very 
> similar implementation, with the annotations stored in the  literal 
> frame of the CompiledMethod.

It is similar but not identical. Tweak supports some annotations that VW 
doesn't support and vice versa. For example, try:

	<type: Object>

in VW (it fails) vs. Tweak (it uses class Object) or

	<args: #(foo bar baz) types: #(Object Integer String)>


in VW (it works) vs. Tweak (it fails). This could probably be fixed but 
personally, I don't care that much. Patches are of course welcome ;-)

Cheers,
   - Andreas