Then also:

Object1 , {Object2 . Object3} -> {Object1 . Object2 . Object3}

But then you might want to preserve argument species :
$a , ' mouse' -> {$a. ' mouse'}.
$a , ' mouse' -> {$a. $ . $m. $o. $u. $s. $e}.
$a , ' mouse' -> 'a mouse'.

Nicolas

2010/6/21 Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com>:
> My sincere apologies Brent, I completely forgot about that change-set.
>  I did not intentionally dissect your implementation.
>
> I've just posted an updated Collections package with the entire
> original change-set that now encompasses the full concept.  A mere six
> methods bring the same useful extension of ExceptionSets to any
> object.  Objects may be concatenated, as in:
>
>  object1, object2 --> "{ object1. object2 }
>
> and, also:
>
>  { object1, object2 }, object3 --> "{object1. object2. object3 }"
>
> It flattens API where collection-arguments are concerned..  Useful,
> terse.  Gorgeous.  I support this.
>
>  - Chris
>
> On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Brent Pinkney <brent at zamail.co.za> wrote:
>> Op zondag 20 juni 2010 22:53:46 schreef Frank Shearar:
>>> I must be having a slow day or something. The idiom's nice & pretty...
>>> and of course #asCollection doesn't exist. So what Chris is saying is
>>> that this idiom is nice and pretty and we need Object>>asArray to make
>>> it work.
>>
>> Actually, I wrote #asCollection and #asArray (and Object >> #, ) as part of
>> the same change set to get decent collection semantics into Object.
>>
>> Chris - perhaps it makes sense to submit them as one ?
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>
>
>