Ah, the sacrificial underscore. I like the left arrow and the up arrow a
lot, but I see how this could mess one up when one has code with
underscores in it.

I don't have any code with underscores in it. They don't seem to fit the
language stylistically to my eye.


On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Levente Uzonyi <leves at elte.hu> wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Feb 2014, J. Vuletich (mail lists) wrote:
>
>  Quoting tim Rowledge <tim at rowledge.org>:
>>
>>
>>> On 24-02-2014, at 10:52 AM, Nicolas Cellier <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice@
>>> gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>  Though being reserved for return statements, the upArrow ^ could
>>>> perfectly be accepted as a character composing a binary selector, like the
>>>> verticalBar | already is.
>>>>
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>  What do you think?
>>>>
>>>>  I think that it would be a massive cognitive overload when reading
>>> code. The return signifier needs to be a unique artefact, whatever it is.
>>>
>>> foo bar blah ^ ribbet factorial
>>>
>>> Quick - is that correct code or should there be a '.' in front of the ^
>>> ? Will it crash the spaceship?
>>>
>>> I wish we still had a proper up arrow rather than a caret, not to
>>> mention the proper left arrow assign instead of the nonsensical Pascal :=.
>>>
>>
>> StrikeFont allInstancesDo: [ :each | each useLeftArrow ]
>>
>
> That solves the problem, but it makes another. We lose underscore
> character with that change. :)
>
>
> Levente
>
>
>
>> :)
>>
>>  tim
>>> --
>>> tim Rowledge; tim at rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
>>> If you think C++ is not overly complicated, just what is a protected
>>> abstract virtual base pure virtual private destructor and when was the last
>>> time you needed one? -- Tom Cargin
>>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Juan Vuletich
>>
>>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20140225/cab3c2c0/attachment.htm