I think a much bigger win would be changing the scanner (if this
hasn't been done already) so we get the # back for extensions.  Then
we could easily add things like Lisp-style macros as Dolphin did ( ##(
"code") as I recall).

On 9/4/07, Damien Pollet <damien.pollet at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 04/09/07, Peter William Lount <peter at smalltalk.org> wrote:
> > I agree with Jon that changes to the Smalltalk syntax need to be very
> > carefully considered. The perlification of Smalltalk has already begun
> > unnecessarily with the curly braces!
>
> I understood "petrification" with the typo in the subject ;)
>
> >     "Same as using curly braces but importantly NO syntax changes needed!"
> >     list := [a. b. c] objects.
>
> But  a. b. c  is a sequence that evaluates to the result of c. How can
> the block see a and b without doing dirty tricks accessing its own
> source code ?
>
> IMHO curly braces are useful, they replace collection new add add add
> in the same way cascade replaces receiver foo. receiver bar. receiver
> baz. I'd accept message chains if they used the comma but it really
> needs actual usage to proof it's useful.
>
> Now I'd prefer discussions on compile-time expressions, how to extend
> curlies to create arbitrary kinds of collections, and stuff like that.
>
> --
> Damien Pollet
> type less, do more [ | ] http://typo.cdlm.fasmz.org
>
>