On October 23, 2019 5:46:50 AM PDT, "p...@highoctane.be" <p...@highoctane.be>
wrote:
>On Wed, 23 Oct 2019, 14:25 Kasper Osterbye, <kasper.oster...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 2:21 PM p...@highoctane.be
><p...@highoctane.be>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> It is like Object>>in: aBlock no?
>>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> But because it is an operator, you can write "obj => block => block
>=>
>> block".
>> You can not write "obj in: block in: block in: block", because
>smalltalk
>> will think it is a selector named "in:in:in:".
>>
>
>Indeed.
>
>I would still use in: with parentheses instead of introducing a new
>(albeit
>cool) operator.
Especially when that particular selector has often been implemented as a
shorthand for creating associations!
>
>Phil
>
>
>> Best,
>>
>> Kasper
>>
