Am 18.02.2005 um 01:23 schrieb Yoshiki Ohshima:

>   Joseph,
>
>> 1) What is the significance of the use of >> in many of your emails? 
>> Is
>> this a SmallTalkism that I missed somewhere or is this a convention
>> used to tie a Class name and a method name together in discussions?
>
>   I am by no mean an old timer, but I think the original convention
> was to write:
>
>   (Class name)>(method category name)>(method name)
>
> but the method category name is not necessary to specify unique method
> so people omit it and write:
>
>   (Class name)>>(method name)

Interesting, haven't heard that one before.

> .  Interestingly, Smalltalk can have '>>' (or we usually write #>> to
> signify it is a Symbol), as a method selector.  For example, if you
> evaluate a line like:
>
>   Class>>#name
>
> in a workspace, you'll get an instance of CompileMethod that is bound
> to the #name method of Class.

Hehe, that's a tiny hack I put in years ago ... It's just a synonym for 
#compiledMethodAt:, and I only very recently saw it used in actual 
code. The only uglyness is that it requires the hash mark, whereas in 
regular conversation we leave that out.

- Bert -