Re: unified methods

["Jay Carlson" <nop@...>]

> I have to agree on the confusion arising from all the operators!
> Used so far in this thread: . : .. :: -> .> :>
> Ouch! what about ;) :-> and  .-> ?? *g*

As a test of a proposed MOO type extension mechanism, we were working out
how a new boolean type would work.  There were a bunch of proposed syntax
choices for true and false, but I think what was decided on was Ken Fox's

(-: true :-)
)-: false :-(

There were some holdouts for :-( false )-: of course.  Sadly, it was never
implemented, even as a test.  But it *was* an unambiguous parse....

Jay