<br><div><span class="gmail_quote">2007/8/27, Alan Lovejoy <<a href="mailto:squeak-dev.sourcery@forum-mail.net">squeak-dev.sourcery@forum-mail.net</a>>:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Denis Kudriashov wrote:<br>> Smalltalk is wonderfull language. We can implement any ideas without<br>> making changes in language (as Java or C# live).<br>> I think pipes is very usefull in DSL implementation and usage, simpler
<br>> and fast object inspecting. But long message chaines in domain code<br>> are bad smell<br><br>There haven't been all that many syntax changes to Smalltalk since its<br>public release as ST80. Off the top of my head, I can list the following:
<br><br></blockquote></div><br><br>These changes does not have an influence on language core, language semantics. Its just was some convenient constructions for building special objects. But when we put in Smalltalk new operator we change it semantics. Why we must do it?
<span class="gmail_quote"><br>Bert implemented it in clean Smalltalk without any language changes. Why it is not </span><span style="color: rgb(128, 128, 128);">enough?</span><br><span class="gmail_quote"><br></span>Best regards,
<br>Denis<br><br>