> So is it okay / advisable to go beyond the original spec if it lets me?

I would prefer an interface that still looks like message sending in the first place. I suppose there are some cases where the parser (or compiler) let's you do something that might just be an oversight. I would consider "- at +" way too cryptic.

That's the path you would be walking on if you follow that: 

self ><>.
self »-(¯`·.·´¯)->.
self --------{---(@.

https://1lineart.kulaone.com/#/ [https://1lineart.kulaone.com/#/] :-)

Not good. Just my two cents.

Best,
Marcel
Am 26.05.2019 01:09:14 schrieb Chris Muller <ma.chris.m at gmail.com>:
It also seems to indicate that - (minus) is only allowed all by itself, not with any of the others.

The others are limited to a maximum of two.

However, I was just able to save (compile) a method named - at +.   So is it okay / advisable to go beyond the original spec if it lets me?

On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 6:04 PM Chris Muller <ma.chris.m at gmail.com [mailto:ma.chris.m at gmail.com]> wrote:

I was looking for every valid character allowed as part of a binary selector name.  Nothing in SelectorNode was obvious to me, but the AST diagram in my copy of Smalltalk-80, The Language and Implementation, says they are:

     - + / * ~ < > = @ % | & ? !

Is this still correct?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20190528/443fcf33/attachment.html>