We already have a way to display assignments as either _ or :=, right?

So if a pipe is equivalent to a parenthesized expression, why not having
a preference to display it as a pipe or something else?
The parser would have to be modified, but the accepted source code  
would stay with parentheses.

If you get fancy, you could also let people choose what their "pipe"  
should look like ;-).

	Romain

On Sep 4, 2007, at 6:06 PM, Ramon Leon wrote:

>>> 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
>
>

--
Romain Robbes
http://romain.robb.es


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20070904/d3c121f2/attachment.htm