On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Francisco Garau <francisco.ga...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 3 June 2015 at 05:56, Ben Coman <b...@openinworld.com> wrote: >> >> I think that would confuse me, and maybe break syntax highlighting. >> It *looks* like a message send to nothing. > > > That might be a good thing as there is no object needed to resolve the > method lookup. You already have the "method" to evaluate, which is obviously > the block. > > It's a bit heretic, but the more I think, the more I like it.
Well, if its an itch you need to scratch, go ahead :) But it might be a struggle to get the community to accept it into Pharo, and hence possibly a maintenance burden for you each Pharo release. cheers -ben > >> >> How about something that gives more feeling of inserting... >> add <-- 3 , 4. >> add <<< 3 , 4. >> add <<: 3 <<: 4. >> add @:3 @:4. >> >> >> cheers -ben >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 8:17 AM, Francisco Garau >> <francisco.ga...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Hello, >> > >> > I'd like to make some syntax changes that would make block evaluation >> > more >> > legible. >> > >> > Currently we define and evaluate blocks like this: >> > >> > inc := [ : x | x + 1 ]. >> > (inc value: 3) = 4. >> > addTo := [ : x : y | x + y ]. >> > (addTo value: 3 value: 4) = 7. >> > >> > >> > But I would like them to be defined like this: >> > >> > [ inc: x | x + 1 ]. >> > (inc: 3) = 4 >> > >> > [add: x to: y | x + y ]. >> > (add: 3 to: 4) = 7. >> > >> > >> > What do you think? Is it feasible? >> > >> > I presume it's Opal where I should start looking at implementing this >> > changes, but any hints/suggestions are welcomed. >> > >> > Cheers, >> > Francisco >> >
