On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 05:24:03 +0200, Andreas Raab wrote:
...
> 5. The <> escape syntax is one of the few extension points in Squeak.  
> Loosing it is a shame.

I think that this is the main point, around which the various proposals  
can be arranged (if I overlooked or did not subsume someone's proposal,  
please tell me so):

[Andreas] the <> escape syntax serves existing extensions and there is no  
reason to break compatibility

[Lukas] everything in the <> escape is like a pragma and the associated  
tools (compiler, decompiler, debugger, "executor") must register their  
support, including the existing ones

[Jecel] whatever is in the <> escape shall be formulated as (if it not  
already is) a message and sent to the compiler (my favorite, just in case  
someone asks :)

There is not much which can be factored from these three directions?

/Klaus

P.S. I urge everybody interested in this thread to study  
#externalFunctionDeclaration in Andreas' FFIPragmaTest.1.cs, for getting  
an idea how an untyped system supports typed language (typed language  
extensions). And this example is only for the single [and naive!], not  
multiple and not the general, typed language(s) extension </grin>