>>>>> "Chris" == Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> writes:

>> I agree, it looks akward and hackish to me too; a step backward from the
>> nice API for collections we currently have.

Chris> I guess I just don't understand why:

Chris>   field1, field2, field3

Chris> looks "awkward and hackish?"  It is the most natural way to express a
Chris> "list" of things that you can possibly have...

Funny thing that.  We already have:

      { field1 . field2 . field3 }

which to me reads even clearer.

Chris> You don't have use it.  It's optional.

Until it hides a problem.  Or breaks something else.

I vote no if I get a vote.

-- 
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<merlyn at stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See http://methodsandmessages.vox.com/ for Smalltalk and Seaside discussion