A provocative naming idea for "setter" methods

[Brian Rice]

I forgot to note that using a binary selector would make "<A< (3 +  
4)" needed to set A to 3 + 4. "<A< 3 + 4" would set A to 3 and return  
7! :\ I'm not sure I'm entirely happy with this aspect.

On Sep 19, 2005, at 7:42 PM, Brian Rice wrote:

> It would also be a little nicer to have binary-selectors used (for  
> their lower/easier precedence), since Slate allows for something  
> that Smalltalk-80 doesn't: alphanumerics inside of binary  
> selectors. For example, cross- and dot-products in Slate don't have  
> to be dot: and cross:, but can be instead <dot> and <cross>; the <>  
> symbols at the ends make it read and look like an operator (html- 
> tag-lookalikes notwithstanding). I actually made those to get an  
> idea of being able to write binary selectors that could be related  
> to Unicode symbols more clearly.
>
> But in this case, it'd be nice to be able to say, instead of "(A:  
> someValue) doSomethingWith: B", i could do something like "<A<  
> someValue doSomethingWith: B". Or "<A< (<B< 0)" instead of "(a: (b:  
> 0))".

--
-Brian