On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:22:56 -0700, Peter William Lount  
<peter at smalltalk.org> wrote:

> Jason Johnson wrote:
>> I personally wouldn't want to see Smalltalk get things like the
>> implicit self, splitting us further from other Smalltalks and even
>> ourselves as we split into the "implicit self" versus "explicit self"
>> groups as C++ did, only to decide explicit self was best practices
>> after years of fighting about it.
>>
>>
>
> "The shoe." No. "The Gourd." ... repeat forever ...
>
> ;-)

You've got it all wrong. It's a reminder that we need to think of things  
NOT of the body, but of the face and head.

C++ has so many issues of its own (it has all the issues, doesn't it?)  
that it's not necessarily a very good place from which to draw experience  
for Smalltalk.