And if you're into that please consider not using cryptic symbols. It seems
much clearer to use a name, say "each" for this. Then you may write:

> x @foo: y

    each x add: y

> x foo:@ y

    x add: each y

> x @foo:@ y then needs to be

    each x add: each y.

Cheers,
  - Andreas

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Avi Bryant" <avi at beta4.com>
To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list"
<squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 11:41 PM
Subject: Re: A Lispy Forth for Smalltalk


>
> On Feb 15, 2004, at 12:54 AM, ducasse wrote:
>
> > avi
> >
> > have you looked at F-script and the OOPAL model presented at OOPSLA
> > last year by philippe mougin.
> > Because I still would like to see if this can be introduced in squeak
> > with/without modifying the vm. I just have to
> > find a good student and philippe is willing to help. I browsed the
> > objective-C code and this is not really complex.
> > http://www.iam.unibe.ch/~scg/Archive/Papers/Moug03aOOPALOOPSLA.pdf
>
> Yes, I've looked at F-script.  I don't see that we would need any VM
> modifications to support it, just some compiler extensions.  We just
> define, eg,
>
> x @foo: y
>
> to be syntactic sugar for
>
> x collect: [:ea | ea foo: y]
>
> and
>
> x foo:@ y
>
> to be syntactic sugar for
>
> y collect: [:ea | x foo: ea].
>
> x @foo:@ y then needs to be
>
> x collect: [:eaX | y collect: [:eaY | eaX foo: eaY]]
>
> and so on.  I haven't thought yet about what would happen with @@, but
> I expect it should still basically be a macro expansion to sends of
> #collect:.
>
> We could also use DNU to support his "implicit message patterns", which
> would interpret "x foo: y" as "x @foo:@ y" if they were both Arrays,
> but personally I would rather do without that.
>
>