Andreas wrote:
> <snip> ... (at least for me) the style and consistency of a method says
> a lot about who has written it, how many people have been working
> on it and similar things. </snip>

Absolutely.

Dan wrote:
> <snip> I think we could get *quite close* to something that made us all
> happy with just a bit more energy put into the formatter. </snip>

I definitely agree. Our energy on this topic is best invested in the
formatter, *especially* since Smalltalk is so syntactically simple compared
to other languages.

And I like Dan's ideas regarding a configurable formatter. Very cool.

Dan also wrote:
> PS:  On the topic of variable names, I happen to oppose the "aString"
> style of variable naming except when you really can't think of anything
> better.  I feel a variable should be typed by its type, and named by its
> role (ie "boxCount" instead of "anInteger". <remainder snipped>

I completely agree. Naming a variable by its role makes your code more
self-explanatory, reducing the need for comments. Including type information
in a variable name is often a vestige of typed-language thinking.

Chris