Stéphane Rollandin wrote
>scoping ...
>...
>...

Thanks for the long explaination - but I KNOW all that and 
have FULLY understood what Andreas meant.

But my "Scoping? Why?" question was more a 

 - "Why should we do that, when other Smalltalk dialects dont?". 
 - "There is no scoping for this in others Smalltalk, so WHY should 
    Squeak artificially have it."
 - "Why would we limit Squeak to allow it only to specific classes?"
 - "Why should we go an own route again here?" 

I stand my original suggestion/changeset which 

 a) either disallows selectors with underscore for the whole image
     -> turn preference off

 b)  -> turn preference on
    fully allows one to file in and use code from other Smalltalk
    systems or implement the use case where you need an underscore
    in a selector in whatever class you require

This would reduce the balkanization of Smalltalk (see [1]) a little 
bit and allow for easy exchange and freedom in implementation.

If one really mixes "underscore assignment" and "underscores in selectors"
then I would rather see x_ 1 converted to x := 1 or at least x _ 1 

Hey it's all code and changeable! Especially when we have tools
like RefactoringBrowser, Rewrite Tool, ... and a dynamic system 
that is able to tell us where such code exists.

Bye
T.

[1] http://www.threeriversinstitute.org/blog/?p=466



-- 
GMX DSL: Internet, Telefon und Entertainment für nur 19,99 EUR/mtl.!
http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/dsl02