On Mon, 24 Feb 2014, J. Vuletich (mail lists) wrote:

> Quoting tim Rowledge <tim at rowledge.org>:
>
>> 
>> On 24-02-2014, at 10:52 AM, Nicolas Cellier 
>> <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Though being reserved for return statements, the upArrow ^ could perfectly 
>>> be accepted as a character composing a binary selector, like the 
>>> verticalBar | already is.
>> 
>> [snip]
>> 
>>> What do you think?
>>> 
>> I think that it would be a massive cognitive overload when reading code. 
>> The return signifier needs to be a unique artefact, whatever it is.
>> 
>> foo bar blah ^ ribbet factorial
>> 
>> Quick - is that correct code or should there be a ‘.’ in front of the ^ ? 
>> Will it crash the spaceship?
>> 
>> I wish we still had a proper up arrow rather than a caret, not to mention 
>> the proper left arrow assign instead of the nonsensical Pascal :=.
>
> StrikeFont allInstancesDo: [ :each | each useLeftArrow ]

That solves the problem, but it makes another. We lose underscore 
character with that change. :)


Levente

>
> :)
>
>> tim
>> --
>> tim Rowledge; tim at rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
>> If you think C++ is not overly complicated, just what is a protected 
>> abstract virtual base pure virtual private destructor and when was the last 
>> time you needed one? -- Tom Cargin
>
> Cheers,
> Juan Vuletich
>
>