> > Disregarding the fact that I am against a grammar change of 
> Smalltalk 
> > for
> > this:
> >
> > Using "->" would be... eh, pretty daft! ;)
> >
> > (Considering that we already use that particular token for 
> something 
> > else)
> >
> > regards, Göran
> 
> Oops. :)  Then I change my vote to:   some variation with a > (e.g. =>
> >= :> |>).

I actually like Vassili's suggested :>, it's unused and implies the flow
nicely.

Ramon Leon
http://onsmalltalk.com