Lukas Renggli wrote:
>> Let's forget the syntax for a second since it ain't going to change.
> 
> Amen, my god.

Getting personal now, are we? Anyway, since you haven't brought up any 
new arguments I don't see any reason to change my position. In fact, I'm 
still awaiting your response to these messages:

http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2006-August/107204.html
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2006-August/107243.html

Unfortunately, it does appear as if your only goal is indeed to change 
the FFI syntax, but like I said this isn't going to happen without a 
real benefit for the FFI users. Get used to it.

>> How
>> exactly would that work? Do you intend to make #primitive: work properly
>> or something else? My main reason for asking is that I tried to use
>> "self primitive: 120" in the FFI declaration but it didn't work.
> 
> Yes, that's because it is not implemented the way I proposed yet.
> Right now everything is hardocded, patched, hacked, ... as it was
> before introducing the pragmas.

I don't understand this. Weren't you the guy who said how "clean and 
extensible" this all is now? In any case, I was asking for how an 
extension would register itself as a non-pragma primitive. If you were 
planning on making Parser>>primitive: work properly this could be done 
without affecting anything else and would certainly go a long ways to 
simplify extension parsing (FFI or otherwise).

Cheers,
   - Andreas