Cascade semantics change

[Brian Rice]

After some consideration, Lee and I have enacted a change to `>> so 
that some unexpected behavior is made sensible, but this removes a 
grammatical possibility.

The problem is in an expression such as this:

[| bar |
   bar: something else.
   some Expression `>> [foo bar. bar baz: quux. ]
].

Previously, baz: would be the top-level expression, so it would be sent 
to the cascade argument, and you would get all sorts of confusing 
errors, since you thought that you were sending bar first to the 
cascade, and then baz: to that result with quux as the other argument.

So, now, `>> has been corrected in its semantics so that /all/ leading 
unary context sends are treated as messages to the cascade expression's 
result. In order to refer to bar now, you /must/ refer to it in a 
non-top-level expression.

--
Brian T. Rice
LOGOS Research and Development
http://tunes.org/~water/