stéphane ducasse wrote:
>> However, the missing # in the in: part indicates that this is *not* 
>> any arbitrary symbol, whereas the event name is.
> 
> Ok do you mean that I cannot put #zork but this is an event name.

As a matter of fact I don't consider the event name to be "an arbitrary 
symbol" - it needs to be the name of an event and if I would have had a 
chance of ensuring that an event by that name exists, I would have added 
the appropriate tests (both statically as well as dynamically). This is 
the main reason why it's not #eventName.

>> So for ultimate consistency it would need to be written as
>>
>>     <on: #fire in: optionButton>
>>
>> However, this would add a bit of visual clutter. And, it would look 
>> like you could use a literal other than a Symbol for the event name. 
>> So the #  is implied just like in a literal array.
> 
> Ok so this means that basically there would not too much change to get 
> something consistent with pragmas if we want.

I've been using pragmas side by side for a long time (I think longer 
than Lukas or anybody else in Squeak ;-) I just called the <> constructs 
annotations (and I still like this term better than pragma) but that's 
about the only difference.

Cheers,
   - Andreas

PS. Got to catch a flight so I'll be offline for a day or so.