Chris,

==========================
> .. It strikes me as being almost self-evident
> that one would want to be in synch with other Smalltalks with respect
> to syntax.

Sorry, its not evident to me, can you be more explicit. Every
left-arrow assignment I type these days has me all "worried" that I'm
creating some sort of unknown painful consequence for myself in the
future.

I'm trying to make myself believe its SO important that I retrain
myself to go BACK to := so that I will, in fact, bite the bullet and do
it. Can you help me make the jump?

It's not important for porting to other Smalltalks, since a trivial
script can do the transformation. I'm not too concerned about someone
getting confused by the code since it would be obvious very quickly
what it is..

So far, all I'm coming up with is pretty much one of those "consistency
for consistency's sake" type of arguments..
==========================

I do not see it that way at all.  Squeak's handling/abuse of underscores
has been a pain to me for a long time, and I am apparently not alone. 
Please note that I am proposing a solution that would let you type _ for
assignment.  However, I am convinced that it was a mistake to allow what
should be an editor macro to get built into the compiler and tarnish the
sources.

Bill




Wilhelm K. Schwab, Ph.D.
University of Florida
Department of Anesthesiology
PO Box 100254
Gainesville, FL 32610-0254

Email: bills at anest4.anest.ufl.edu
Tel: (352) 846-1285
FAX: (352) 392-7029