Tim,  I don't agree.  Don't rely on books so much {raspberry sound effects}
;-)  Consider that in:

| m n  |
n := 2.
m := 3.
n := m + (m := n).

m is the receiver of the plus message and not another argument, as in your
example, so it gets pushed onto the stack before the arguments are
evaluated, inline.  My C++ example was really wrong, and let's just forget
about that, please.

check out these bytecodes:

<77> pushConstant: 2
<69> popIntoTemp: 1
<20> pushConstant: 3
<68> popIntoTemp: 0
<10> pushTemp: 0
<11> pushTemp: 1
<81 40> storeIntoTemp: 0
<B0> send: +
<81 41> storeIntoTemp: 1
<7C> returnTop

rob

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Rowledge [mailto:tim at sumeru.stanford.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 7:22 PM
> To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> Subject: Re: [OT] Writing a parser for BASIC in Smalltalk/Squeak ?
> (<CSOTD> included)
> 
> 
> Sorry guys, but by inspection, deduction, induction, reductio ad
> absurdum, bivariant algorithmic analysis, flim-flam and fiat, you are
> wrong. So there. {raspberry sound effects}
> 
> Expressions in () are supposed to be _completed_ before the 
> rest of the
> expression is executed.
> 
>   foo doThisWith: a and: (a _ fribble slander)
> should be identical to
>   a_ fribble slander.
>   foo doThisWith: a and: a
> 
> Suggesting anything else is a symptom of advanced senility. It says so
> in this book right here.
> 
> tim
> 
> -- 
> Tim Rowledge, tim at sumeru.stanford.edu, http://sumeru.stanford.edu/tim
> Useful random insult:- Couldn't balance a checkbook if 
> Einstein helped.
> 
> 
>