On Aug 27, 2007, at 10:00 PM, Jason Johnson wrote:

> On 8/27/07, Fabio Filasieno <fabio.filasieno at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>  cascade operator.  You don't like it, but it still provides
>> something that requires temporary variables to duplicate without it.
>>
>> ahaaaa ..... I didn't get temp thing right.
>
> There we go. :)  I need to work on my communication perhaps. :)

Maybe I'm a bit slow too ;-)

>> Don't know yet if I like it that way ...
>> But now I see the point; and why somebody might prefer it that way.
>> I wouldn't be so sure now on cutting the ";" cascade out now.
>> I would say - but just now - that there is no pipe vs cascade thing.
>>
>> Thanks for ringing the bell ....
>
> Thanks for being open to discussing it. :)  But I would really suggest
> finding some project (something with a Seaside web site would be a

I'm writing an interpreter for a scripting language that I have in  
mind and I
can't wait to finish it, and get some critics out of you !

> good one) of decent size and implementing it in Smalltalk.  There is
> really nothing quite like this language and many things look a bit
> different, and if you're open to it, extremely elegant when translated
> to "the Smalltalk way".  I had many concerns about the language myself
> when I first came here, but now I find I like the Smalltalk way the
> best.
>

Anyway thanks a lot for your patience an the "Re: pipe" thread.




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20070827/4e84e67b/attachment.htm