Mathieu Suen wrote:
> On Sep 5, 2007, at 2:45 AM, Peter William Lount wrote:
>
>> I wonder Alan, if you could, expand on what you mean by "but it needs 
>> to be done at the same level as regular programming (so it can be 
>> used by any base version of the language)"?
>
> I thinks he mean: don't add syntactic rules when you are using your 
> language.
>
>     Mth
>
>
>
>
Hi,

Yes, that's the point I'm making as well in this thread of emails and 
articles on http://www.smalltalk.org:  "Don't add syntactic rules when 
you are using your language unless there is no other alternative or 
unless it provides a compelling advantage."

A special category of exceptions to library only extensions exist that 
enable the opening of a new dimension of capability. For example, blocks 
enable anyone to create new control flow structures in Smalltalk. It's 
still surprising how people are continuously innovating in with methods 
for blocks and unique ways of using them. I look for opportunities to 
enhance a language syntax that create these new dimensions. I see the 
gap of possibilities and a few innovative ways of using it but it's how 
big the gap is that's key.

The curly braces don't create a new dimension of possibility beyond the 
few uses since the the curly braces are not extensible in the class 
libraries. However, the block version of continuously collecting 
statement evaluations does enable a new dimension.  I don't know all the 
uses. But already in this discussion someone found one, by adding a 
third evaluator for concurrency purposes. That's not just another use 
but an entire other dimension found! Now to implement them and extend 
the power of blocks into the future.

Other languages are catching up and surpassing Smalltalk - we need to 
keep up and jet to the future.

Peter