Denis Kudriashov wrote:
>
> 2007/8/27, Alan Lovejoy <squeak-dev.sourcery at forum-mail.net 
> <mailto:squeak-dev.sourcery at forum-mail.net>>:
>
>     There haven't been all that many syntax changes to Smalltalk since its
>     public release as ST80.  Off the top of my head, I can list the
>     following:
>
>
> These changes does not have an influence on language core, language 
> semantics. Its just was some convenient constructions for building 
> special objects. But when we put in Smalltalk new operator we change 
> it semantics. Why we must do it?
> Bert implemented it in clean Smalltalk without any language changes. 
> Why it is not enough?
>
There are two issues:

1) Are the proposed "pipes" a good idea at all?  Is it good programming 
style--or an abusive practice?

2) If pipes are good style, is it better to implement them syntactically 
(which is rarely done in Smalltalk,) or using Smalltalk's usual 
implementation strategy: sending messages to objects?

There are two arguments in favor of the syntax-based implementation 
(which presumes that the answer to point 1 above is that "pipes are good 
style"):

1) Performance: The syntax-based implementation would be significantly 
faster.

2) Code clarity: The syntax-based implementation could be made visually 
much clearer, with much less probability of being wrongly interpreted by 
the reader.  A reader of the code would be much more likely to miss an 
#asPipe message at the beginning of a sequence of message cascades, than 
he would be to miss a new, well-chosen pipe operator (e.g, ":>"). The 
semantics of a message cascade and a sequence of piped messages is 
rather different.

Personally, I'm undecided as to whether pipes are good style, but favor 
a syntax-based implementation, if pipes are to be implemented and used 
at all (for the reasons above.)

--Alan