I suspect that implicit self probably makes Self code more
difficult for beginners to read for exactly the reason you state:
it doesn't follow the "receiver message" pattern. However, I
must add that:

  1. I haven't taught Self to anyone who didn't already know Smalltalk,
      so I have no evidence one way or the other, and
  2. The expert Self programmer quckly becomes used to  implicit self.

I'll also add that I find Smalltalk code a little more pleasant to read. I
like look of assignment arrows. That, of course, is purely a matter
of personal opinion and aesthetics.

	-- John


At 11:14 PM +0200 8/22/01, Henrik Gedenryd wrote:
>Stefan Matthias Aust wrote:
>
>> In the last squeak, I changed my mind an nowadays, Self has not enough
>> syntax for my taste. You really have to get used to all that (| .. |)
>> object declarations ( ) method declarations, implicit self sends and the
>> fact that even local variables doesn't exist.
>
>I'd like to hear your opinion: do you think it is an advantage to allow
>receiver self to be implicit? I have started to think that this breaks the
>simple principle of always having the "receiver message" pattern and thereby
>causes more irregularity than advantages. But I'd like to hear others'
>opinion on this, I don't have a strong opinion yet. Jecel and John Maloney
>might have something wise to say about this as well?