Stephen Pair wrote:
And, as I've said before, I think the typing should be optional for both the writer and the reader (meaning that any attempt to do this in Squeak should take into consideration that even though the author of a method may have included type annotations, the reader may not want to see them).
They're already optional for the writer. I've the feeling that for the reader they can't/shouldn't be optional. Without types, the writer might choose "anInteger" or "nameString" as the variable name. With types, however, "anInteger<Integer>" looks like stuttering and "amout<Int>" or "name<String>" whould be more appropriate. With types stripped off, thinks become worse now.
I'd perfer to experiment with a different syntax for types. Perhaps "amout@Int" or "amout :int" wouldn't be so bothering.
bye