>From: "Alan Lovejoy" <squeak-dev.sourcery at forum-mail.net>
>Reply-To: The general-purpose Squeak developers 
>list<squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
>To: "'The general-purpose Squeak developers 
>list'"<squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
>Subject: RE: Any reason for assigning block parameter in inject:into:
>Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 17:47:04 -0700
>
>I concur.  The restriction on assignment to arguments simply creates an
>unnecessary semantic distinction between arguments and other variables, and
>so adds complexity to the denotational semantics of Smalltalk syntax.  It's
>not as bad as Java's distinction between objects and primitive values, but
>it's a language design flaw of the same sort.

But I thought lots of people here *wanted* optional read-only values, no?  
If those are added as I have seen requested several times then how will we 
distinguish *those*?

With the view given by most here, it does seem quite arbitrary.  But with 
the view that "the system wants that for efficiency" (even though it seems 
that isn't the case in at least Squeak), it is actually the expected 
behavior.

_________________________________________________________________
Download Messenger. Join the i’m Initiative. Help make a difference today. 
http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=TAGHM_APR07