Stephen Pair wrote:

> And, as I've said before, I think the typing should be optional for both
> the writer and the reader (meaning that any attempt to do this in Squeak
> should take into consideration that even though the author of a method
> may have included type annotations, the reader may not want to see
> them).

They're already optional for the writer.  I've the feeling that for the 
reader they can't/shouldn't be optional.  Without types, the writer 
might choose "anInteger" or "nameString" as the variable name.  With 
types, however, "anInteger<Integer>" looks like stuttering and 
"amout<Int>" or "name<String>" whould be more appropriate.  With types 
stripped off, thinks become worse now.

I'd perfer to experiment with a different syntax for types.  Perhaps 
"amout at Int" or "amout :int" wouldn't be so bothering.

bye
-- 
Stefan Matthias Aust   //
www.3plus4software.de // Inter Deum Et Diabolum Semper Musica Est