On May 26, 2010, at 11:58 51AM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: > hi richard > >> WTF?! > > If you have a real argument we are really open to discussion. > >> These are the only reasons? > I think that they are sufficient +1
> Because we could have and:or: or:and: and:and:or: and a couple of others in > that case. No we could not :) Because of ambiguity: a and: (b or: c) is not the same as (a and: b) or: c Cheers, Henry _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
