> 
> I agree that {...} is useful.
> 
> {e1. ... . en} is equivalent to
> (OrderedCollection new "note no semicolon"
> add: (e1);
> ...
> add: (en);
> asArray)
> so it obviously CAN be eliminated.  That doesn't mean it should be.
> #@ can be eliminated too:  aNumber @ anotherNumber is equivalent to
> Point x: aNumber y: anotherNumber.  That doesn't mean #@ should be
> eliminated.

There is a big different @ is a message not a parsed construct with specific
rules!!!!!

> The practical questions are
> - would eliminating this feature save more code in the parser and elsewhere
> than it would cost in all the code using it (remember, not all such code
> is known to SqC or anyone else)

I could remove it!

> - is ideological purity worth the loss of clarity?

Sure else Smalltalk would be like Java

> - would it be feasible to make {} support a module?
> 
> At 8:49 +0200 9/30/01, ducasse stephane wrote:
>> #() is necessary because it is compiled statically and cannot not be
>> simulated by other construct. Storing #() in Stack frame is not really goo
>> but this is an implementation aspect.
> 
> This is false.  Any use of # can be eliminated by adding a class variable
> and a class method using lazy initialisation.  For example,
> #( abc 'abc' 4  3.4  $r )

This is not my point. I was just saying that storing #() in stake frame can
lead to strange error.


> can be written as
> MyClass literal27
> where
> MyClass class>>literal27
> literal27 ifNil: [
> literal27 := (OrderedCollection new
> add: 'abc' asSymbol;
> add: 'abc';
> add: 4;
> add: 3.4;
> add: $r;
> asArray)].
> ^literal27
> 
> Come to think of it, we could eliminate $r and 'abc' too:
> 'abc' is (String fromPacked: 6382179) allButFirst
> $r    is Character value: 114.


I'm really sorry to see the level of the discussion

I will never read your email anymore!!!

Bye