Excellent idea.

On 9/4/07, Romain Robbes <romain.robbes at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Hiren J.Thacker
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20070904/d741254c/attachment.htm