On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 10:18:28 +0100 Gwenaël Casaccio <mrg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, > > What about that: > > x foo: 1 :> bar: 2 :> baz: 3 :> zork: 4 instead of (((x foo: 1) bar: > 2) baz: 3) zork: 4 oooohhh... that would eliminate my favorite reason for hitting the up arrow when writing code. But it is a good step on the slippery slope towards complex operator precedence rules. s. > > (from vasily bikov blog: http://blog.3plus4.org/2007/08/30/message-chains/) > > Gwen _______________________________________________ help-smalltalk mailing list help-smalltalk@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-smalltalk
