On 8/27/07, Fabio Filasieno <fabio.filasieno at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Long chains smells alright to me.

Give it time.  Smalltalk has this amazing property that the code truly
seems to "talk" to you and point out things that just aren't quite
right.  Some parts of the code seem to "stick out".  You notice them
every time you browse through your code.  And every time I have seen
this so far, I found a nice refactoring that made the whole system
less complex.

> Happy to see that it seems that your opinion has changed on point 1 from the
> beginning of the thread, and mine has changed on point 2.

Ah, but that's the thing:  I never had anything against a "pipe"
operator.  I did feel you overstated the need for it a bit, since as
others have mentioned, this doesn't tend to come up as much in
Smalltalk (though it does come up).  I also don't like using a literal
pipe.  But having an operator that disambiguates how to resolve
statements without so many parenthesis?  Sure, I would entertain it.
I absolutely love it in Haskell.