On Sep 4, 2007, at 12:42 , Damien Pollet 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 ?

"[a. b. c]" is just a block defining a sequence of statements. The  
value depends on how you evaluate that block - sending #value only  
retains the last value, but you could as well define another  
evaluation strategy by sending another message.

One could even define new semantics instead of a sequence:

	[a. b. c] valueConcurrently

could mean to evaluate each statement concurrently.

- Bert -