Dan.--
    It's also a brainstorming kind of thing where outside
    ideas can be particularly useful.

My 2 cents:

In MathMorphs we've found contradictory the inclusion of a
starting 'self' when "writing on air". The same holds in
inspectors. If you are inspecting an Ellipse or writing it
on air, and you want to ask the Ellipse its position, then
there is no reason to write 'self position' when 'position'
alone describes the intention better.

Sometimes, the use of 'self' goes against the illusion
created by Morphic, where one enjoys the direct manipulation
of objects. If I have an Ellipse at hand, I want to say it
'position', and not 'self position'.

Another question regarding syntax changes was raised by
Andres Valloud a long time ago. Here is a copy of his mail:

From: sqrmax at cvtci.com.ar <sqrmax at cvtci.com.ar>
To: squeak at cs.uiuc.edu <squeak at cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sunday, November 01, 1998 7:38 PM
Subject: Method names

Hi.

Messages usually have the arguments last. Wouldn't it be
nice to have messages that could have arguments between a
phrase? Example:

aBitStream next: 40 bits

Here, bits is a nop. In this way, things get written more
clearly and yet they don't become complex (like implementing
the nop method #bits in Integer). Or maybe another pattern
of keyword message, keyword+nops. The nop can be identified
and  ignored by the compiler (and humans) if a proper text
attribute is used, for  instance. The example
without the nop method names gets like this:

aBitStream next: 40

Or maybe:

aBitStream nextBits: 40

which is not nice. These nops could be called something like
parameter descriptors... does this go against polymorphism
and the untyped Smalltalk???

Andres.


-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Ingalls <Dan.Ingalls at disney.com>
To: crovira at wt.net <crovira at wt.net>
Cc: squeak at cs.uiuc.edu <squeak at cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 9:13 PM
Subject: Re: Squeak (ST80) syntax


>>I'm trying to figure out if you're serious or seriously
[expletive deleted] off.
>
>Sure I'm serious.  I designed the ST-80 syntax, and now I
find out someone doesn't love it!
>
>Just kidding.
>
>Seriously, though, this is an active project at Squeak
Central, as you will discover in the next message on last
week's topic of projects at Squeak Central.  It's also a
brainstorming kind of thing where outside ideas can be
particularly useful.
>
> - Dan
>
>
>