On Wed, 23 Oct 2019, 14:25 Kasper Osterbye, <kasper.osterbye@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 2:21 PM phil@highoctane.be <phil@highoctane.be> wrote:
It is like Object>>in: aBlock no?
Yes.

But because it is an operator, you can write "obj => block => block => block".
You can not write "obj in: block in: block in: block", because smalltalk will think it is a selector named "in:in:in:".

Indeed.

I would still use in: with parentheses instead of introducing a new (albeit cool) operator.

Phil

Best,

Kasper��