It was never a question for me, should Squeak change syntax to use
underscores in names instead of
assignment or not.
It was good to see back-arrow in text
a ← b
in older images.
But its completely ugly and inacceptable for me to see things like this:
a _ b.
This doesn't fits with my aestetic tastes. Much less, comparing seeing
underscores in identifiers!

For those who prefer to use a single character for assignment, i say:
NO PROBLEM.
We have a unicode , so its a mere question of picking a right unicode
character and use it in source and parser.
http://www.alanwood.net/unicode/arrows.html
← U+2190

And we can modify editors to use a special keystroke for entering it:
ctrl-minus
or
alt-minus
but not shift-minus which stands for underscore.

For me, it is obvious and explicit: backwards arrow is not an
underscore and never was.
And, all who saying 'lets keep underscores' is ones who want to keep
our smalltalk dialect balkanized from the rest of the world.


On 14 April 2010 16:02, Torsten Bergmann <astares at gmx.de> wrote:
> Maybe Andreas' solution is too confusing. However
> we all have been warned by Ian, see [1] ;)
>
> While I appreciate that it is now possible in the trunk image
> (since I originally brought up the issue) I still
> would vote for fully allowing underscores without any
> preference.
>
> We all know about the fear of "ugly code" but one
> could write ugly code without it. I would vote for
> the general freedom to use it.
>
> Couldnt we follow the other Smalltalks who seem to
> have no problem with it and the good old rule to
> keep it simple.
>
> Bye
> T.
>
>
> [1] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2010-March/146567.html
>
>
> --
> GRATIS für alle GMX-Mitglieder: Die maxdome Movie-FLAT!
> Jetzt freischalten unter http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/maxdome01
>
>



-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.