On Wed, 23 Oct 2019, 14:25 Kasper Osterbye, <kasper.oster...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 2:21 PM p...@highoctane.be <p...@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 >
