On Wed, 17 Mar 1999, Bert Freudenberg wrote:

> Doug Way wrote:
> 
> > I guess a better argument for using something other than ^ for returning
> > is that you could then use ^ in place of raisedTo:, e.g. x^2, which is
> > semi-standard typed-math notation.  (When was this introduced?)  Still,
> > it ain't gonna happen. :-)
> 
> What's not gonna happen? Using ^ as an operator is as easy as using |
> (there is code in the parser to special-case the vertical bar).  The
> attached changeset patches the parser and adds Number>>#^ to give the
> expected result ... 

Sorry, by "ain't gonna happen" I just meant that I didn't think the ^ was
ever going to be removed as the return symbol.  You've certainly proved
that it's possible to use it for both the return symbol and an operator! 
(I guess I should have thought of that, since the parser can determine
whether the ^ is the first part of a statement or not...) 

- Doug Way
  EAI/Transom Technogies, Ann Arbor, MI
  dway at eai.com, dway at mat.net
  http://www.transom.com

  Smalltalk: Guaranteed Y10K Compliant