On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Craig Latta <<a href="mailto:craig@netjam.org">craig@netjam.org</a>> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
> Defining new language elements is hard. The worst that could happen<br>
> to this project, is to have extremely long threads with no conclusion<br>
> as on the Squeak list.<br>
<br>
Indeed, although for what it's worth there's no lingering debate<br>
there on this particular issue[1]. ;)<br>
<br>
<br>
-C<br>
<br>
[1]<br>
<br>
Namely, the short form of...<br>
<br>
Array with: #foo with: #bar<br>
<br>
is...<br>
<br>
#(foo bar)<br>
<br>
as in Smalltalk-80, and the short form of...<br>
<br>
Array with: #foo with: true<br>
<br>
is...<br>
<br>
{#foo. true}</blockquote><div><br>Well, in Squeak 3.9 I get<br><br>Welcome to the finale version of 3.9 of 7 of November 2006<br>#(nil true false foo) collect: [:ea| ea class] {UndefinedObject . True . False . ByteSymbol}<br>
#(nil true false foo) printString '#(nil true false #foo)'<br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> But I suspect the appropriate standard use of curly brackets<br>
across multiple dialects is a whole other morass. :)</blockquote><div><br>Having been living with Squeak for a while now I really, really like the curly brace syntax. I also note that it doesn't conflict with e.g. VisualWorks use of #{name} for binding references. So I have a strong personal preference for it, but that's just personal.<br>
<br></div></div><br>