> I like things that are simple. One of the reasons I like 
> Smalltalk so much is because it is simple. The BNF chart for 
> the language is incredibly small. Any changes made to it 
> should be carefully considered from a cost-benefit analysis.
> 
> All this has been said before in the various threads on this subject.
> 
> Later,
> Jon

I agree, a syntax change shouldn't be made lightly, however, when even the
creator of the language says something's a good idea I think it's at least
worth exploring.  Not everything can be figured out by thinking alone, some
things take actual experiments and observation to see their effects.

This doesn't even need to be included in the base image for trial, it could
simply be an add on that includes the necessary patches for fixing syntax
aware packages like the Refactoring Browser and Shout.  

The problem of course is that syntax changes really do belong in the base
image and doing so is the only way to ensure critics will try it and find
any real problems, otherwise they're likely to ignore any add on package.

Someone earlier suggested there should be some sort of experimental branch
where things like this are tried out and only when successful, moved into
the main image.  That's not a bad idea.  I think many of the critics are
worried, and rightfully so, that once something makes it into the core it's
very hard to remove, especially if it's syntax.  

Of course, anyone can create such a distribution, but an official
experimental distribution would likely be far more useful and garner far
more testers if it were known as the official proving grounds.  Features
need a place where they can successfully fail without fear that you're stuck
with them.  Given such an environment, such features could prove themselves
and gain support through actual use rather than endless discussions.

Ramon Leon
http://onsmalltalk.com