Vassili's best proposition is to use coma , which is consistent with 
existing use of punctuation (period . and semicolon ;)

Unfortunately, it breaks compatibility with message selector #,
Rephrasing Tim, is it really worth?

Nicolas

Jason Johnson a écrit :
> Lol.  I hope you never leave this list, such directness in our PR
> times is quite refreshing. :)
> 
> But I think you might be looking at the OP's examples.  Vassili's blog
> [1] had some better examples like:
> 
> somethings thingsAt: aKey :> includes: aThing :>
>     ifTrue: [...]
>     ifFalse [...]
> 
> Though for me it's not vastly better then:
> 
> ((somethings thingsAt: aKey)
>    includes: aThing)
>      ifTrue: [...]
>      ifFalse: [...]
> 
> But it does make you backtrack a bit to type it (well, at least
> highlight the exp and type a ( ).
> 
> The obvious counter argument is: is this going to make it less obvious
> when some code should be refactored ala "Smalltalk Best Practice
> Patterns".
> 
> [1] http://blog.3plus4.org/2007/08/30/message-chains/.
> 
>