camille teruel wrote > It's because I don't want users to have to know RB pattern syntax and also > because I plan to not depend on the rewriter in future versions.
Ah I see. RB is powerful and well-known. While easy to replace for simple cases, I wonder if you might be forced to either limit that power or reinvent the wheel... Why not just rely on RB, which was designed for this and battle hardened over many years? ----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Deprecator-tp4769843p4772319.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
