See my earlier proposal to add a pseudovariable to refer to the 
caller. 
You could then do

....
caller setter1: object1
caller setter2: object2
....


Date forwarded: 	22 Mar 1999 12:49:43 -0000
From:           	kpgrant at mindspring.com
Date sent:      	Mon, 22 Mar 1999 07:49:22 -0500 (EST)
To:             	squeak at cs.uiuc.edu
Send reply to:  	kpgrant at mindspring.com
Subject:        	Squeak programming question
Forwarded by:   	squeak at cs.uiuc.edu

> Quick programming question from a Squeak/Smalltalk newbie:
>  
> Is there any elegant method for handling occasions when you
> wish a method to return multiple objects?  I'm writing a
> method that will return a set and a dictionary to the
> caller.  I can't reasonably break up the method into two
> methods (one for each kind of data), and the contents of
> the set and dictionary are unrelated enough that it seems
> silly to make a whole new class of object containing nothing
> but pointers to each.  The only thing that occurs to me is
> something like:
>  
> ^((OrderedCollection new) add: myDictionary add: mySet)
> 
> and then disassemble the thing on the receiving side.  I'm
> not really crazy about this though.
> 
> Re the discussion about turning this mailing list into a
> newsgroup.  At the very least it would be nice if the
> mailing list were split up into sub-lists based on topic.
> There is a lot of traffic on the list that people like me,
> who aren't far enough along to even think about making
> improvements to the current environment, can't begin to
> follow.  At the same time it seems kind of silly to post
> a "how do I do this in Squeak" kind of question to the
> whole list.  A sub-list dedicated to programming questions
> would be nice.
> 
> Thanks,
> Kevin
> 
> 



Ivan Tomek,

Jodrey School of Computer Science
Acadia University
Nova Scotia, Canada

fax: (902) 585-1067
voice: (902) 585-1467


Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code.

Elegance: The Mona Lisa has it, and so does the binary search algorithm. The Golden Gate
      Bridge has it, as do the World Wide Web, Visicalc, Smalltalk and the U.S. Constitution.
                 Public-key cryptography and Michelangelo's Pieta also have it." 
                                 - Gary H. Anthes , Computer World 

 "Beauty is more important in computing than anywhere else in technology because software is so
                complicated. Beauty is the ultimate defense against complexity." 
                      - David Gelernter, Professor of Computer Science, Yale University.