Oct. 23, 2019
3:41 p.m.
On October 23, 2019 5:46:50 AM PDT, "phil@highoctane.be" <phil@highoctane.be> wrote:
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.
Especially when that particular selector has often been implemented as a shorthand for creating associations!
Phil
Best,
Kasper