[F-Script-talk] Syntax suggestion

[stephen w. <st...@ad...>]

Hi Philippe and others,

Yes, the language writer's horror rears its ugly head... it's syntax  
suggestion time! :)

Many times, I'll be burrowing through some object references on the  
command line, and I find myself having to enclose everything I've  
typed in ()'s. By the time I get to what I'm after, Smalltalk is  
looking very much like LISP!

So, just as sentences have commas as well as full-stops, perhaps  
Smalltalk needs a comma! Here is how it could operate:

	Current:

		object4 setMapX:((object7 valueForKey:'trackpoints') at:432) latitude.

	Proposed:

		object4 setMapX:object7 valueForKey:'trackpoints', at:432, latitude.

	Multiple arguments:

		object4 addDepth:object4 depth width:(adjust valueForKey:'width')  
height:object4 height.

		object4 addDepth:object4 depth width:adjust valueForKey:'width',  
height:object4 height.

The lexical opposite of cascading? The comma would be matched to the  
start of the current section, like cascading, but update with results  
instead of retaining the first object. I can't seem to find any  
ambiguous cases, except when defining arrays in { ,, }.

Whether it is a comma or some other syntax, there does appear to be  
some opportunity for replacing the nested ()'s with something more  
readable.

Steve.

--
   st...@ad...