I agree with that.
To be compatible with these goals, I think my proposition just needs to be updated a bit.
I'm still in favor of rules to transform ANSI code to Pharo code. The point is that we should not force the user to update their code base. The rule-cased approach is compatible with that if you transform ANSI code when it gets loaded in the image.

True to a ��point.�� That point being folks who want to write code that could play in other ANSI Smalltalks - ��with your approach, you have locked those people out, since they CAN'T write ansi code - only Pharo code. ��any non-Pharo ANSI'ism would be auto-changed back to Pharo - and they'd leave to write and live in a different Smalltalk.

Now, if you had the ANSI compatibility layer that either allowed conversion to Pharo OR ignored conversion to Pharo, that wouldn't be a barrier.

On a different topic, what would be required to amend the ANSI standard? Maybe a Smalltalk Agreement 2016 that took the standard and amended some parts (like fixing the spelling) so that going forward, all Smalltalks could be standard with good English spellings?

Chris

ANSI is not really good. It is old. And the time investement would be enormous to improve and nobody would care.
I read it with attention about strings for example. Because the String API is not really nice in any Smalltalk but this is another story.
I do not expect anything from Ansi or any improvements.
Let us face it when VW change syntax, added namespaces or whatever they did not care about ANSI.
So adding a compatibility package is the way to go.

Stef