On Oct 10, 2007, at 7:15 , Keith Hodges wrote:

> If I recall correctly the default behaviour begins such that the first
> chunk is read and evaluated by the compiler, the result being a reader

Not quite. A chunk is everything up to the next bang (!). A chunk is  
simply evaluated. Only if an empty chunk is seen, i.e., it starts  
with a bang, the next chunk is taken as a reader definition.

> which (by convention) reads the next chunk and so on. Typically when a
> reader finds an empty chunk it returns,  resetting to the initial  
> reader
> which restarts the process.

For source code readers, yes.

> chunks can include encoded
> binary data if preceded by the appropriate decoding reader.

It can even be raw binary data, not encoded. It's the reader's  
responsibility to deal with what follows.

> A header chunk, to set up the SystemEditors, one for the forward
> direction one for the reverse (although I suspect it may be  
> possible to
> have one do both.)
>
> ! CurrentSystemEditor value: SystemEditor new. ! !

No, that would be a reader chunk. The correct way is

  CurrentSystemEditor value: SystemEditor new. !

> Action Chunks.
>
> ! CurrentSystemEditor value addInstVarName: 'a' ! ! "individual  
> statements"
> ! CurrentSystemEditor value inverseEditor removeInstVarName: 'a' ! !

Again - you should use plain chunks for that, not reader chunks.

> Although many may not agree with me I think there is a lot of  
> potential
> for innovation using the chunk format, and it has the advantage that
> most people have the tools to read it already.

It's incredibly flexible indeed, and goes back to the B5000 that  
inspired Smalltalk.

- Bert -