Would any of the "pipe" advocates mind taking a stab at the *current* source
methods, and rewrite the method showing how pipe syntax would have simplified
or clarified the method?

I ask this because I suspect that if you're following good practices (such as
those adovocated in Beck's "Smalltalk Best Practice Patterns"), you won't
actually *need* a pipe syntax, because your code would never have gotten that
complicated.

So, instead of writing Smalltalk with a bias for your previous programming
language where pipe makes more sense, how about taking some *native* Smalltalk
to show how pipe would have helped?

-- 
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<merlyn at stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!