On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 18:04:04 +0200, J J (in a hard-to-read HTML message :)  
wrote:

>
> Well, it's syntactic sugar.  It looks pretty alien in Smalltalk, but  
> other languages support multiple-assignment (e.g. "swap"  {a. b} := {b.  
> a}).  Of course this gets tricky because if you have multiple assignment  
> it seems natural to return multiple values from a function (e.g. {a. b}  
> := a swapWith: b).  That would probably require a big change to  
> implement and you end up with something Smalltalk can already do other  
> ways, and become (more) incompatible with other dialects.

You can always do ^ {this. and / or. that} for returning multiple values,  
without any change in Squeak.

> To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org> From: blake at kingdomrpg.com>  
> Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:58:25 -0700> Subject: Re: Newbie question> >  
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:27:21 -0700, subbukk <subbukk at gmail.com> wrote:>  
> > > On Monday 23 July 2007 11:39 pm, Bert Freudenberg wrote:> >> >> Now,  
> at one point the compiler even supported this:> >>> >> 	{a. b} := {1.  
> 2}> >>> >> which I found cool but was considered evil, even by those  
> who> >> tolerate the braces ...> > What would this do? It looks like  
> you're assigning a literal to another  > literal?>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Don't get caught with egg on your face. Play Chicktionary!  
> http://club.live.com/chicktionary.aspx?icid=chick_wlmailtextlink