> From: "Ivan Tomek" <ivan.tomek at acadiau.ca>
>
> I would like to join those who oppose this valiant proposal. The main  
> problem for me is that it complicates the beautifully simple and  
uniform
> syntax of Smalltalk: As an example, a: b does not have a receiver. I  
> consider the simple syntax one of the great things about Smalltalk  
> both for learning and for code readability.

Well, as I explained to Jarvis, my proposal actually simplifies the  
syntax by removing the "receiver" entirely and uniformly because all  
message sends have to start with the implicit receiver.  I hadn't  
thought about this before, but the fact that you have to *name* a  
direct receiver for message sends was one of the things that was  
complicating a couple of other ideas.  Hmmm...

It does look a little strange, though. :-)

Marcel