> On 2019-05-29, at 7:54 PM, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>> 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.
> 
> Yes, I wouldn't ever use it.  It was just a test to see if the
> compiler would accept it.
> 
>> That's the path you would be walking on if you follow that:
>> 
>> self ><>.
>> self »-(¯`·.·´¯)->.
>> self --------{---(@.

Eeeek.

Of course, the burning question is whether unicode emoji char points are valid for unary/binary selectors? 
 foo 👈 42 🧛‍♂️ + myThing 🇬🇧 thatThing

ie foo := 42 vampire + myThing union thatThing 

🧐
Almost Smalltalk-72 ?

tim
--
tim Rowledge; tim at rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
C++ is history repeated as tragedy. Java is history repeated as farce.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20190529/ab7ee6de/attachment.html>