> I strongly disagree that this should be in the main image. 
> This would encourage code that is not ANSI compliant, and I'm 
> quite happy with my parenthesis. 
> 
> Michael. 

Are you saying you don't ever want to see the Smalltalk language grow beyond
its current state?  We have a special operator for cascades to get at the
previous receiver, seems only natural to want one for the opposite to get at
the previous result.  Personally, I can live with Bert's asPipe solution,
however, I think this is a nice language addition and I'd like to see it
added in some form.

Ramon Leon
http://onsmalltalk.com