Why so few binary method selectors?

Dan Ingalls DanI at wdi.disney.com
Tue Mar 16 18:03:52 UTC 1999


>Squeakers -- As we list our favorite uses of ? my mind gets to
>wondering: why can't we string more than two characters together to make
>long binary method names? I could find a use for ===, or <<<, or maybe
>even <//>. I always figured that the language designers didn't want the
>programs to look like FORTH. Or was it that they had enough custom
>glyphs in those early days that they never felt the need?
>
>Anyway, since I enjoy standing at the top of slippery slopes and looking
>down, let me ask the group a question. If we could have long binary
>method selectors, what would be the first one you would define, and what
>would it do? Best regards. -- Ward

This was my intention from when we first laid out the ST-80 syntax.  I don't know where it got lost in Squeak's lineage, but I'll set it right this week.  I've had this fix in my image for a long time, and forgot that it had not been made a proper update.

	- Dan





More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list