On 6/18/05, Juerd wrote:
>  Why exactly is the slash not acceptable for you? Almost everyone has
>  said they like it. I personally find ./method prettier and easier to
>  type than any of the alternatives.

I don't like it because I think method calls should look like method calls,
and the slash separating the dot and name makes it look like something else
entirely. 

On 6/19/05, Juerd wrote:
>  David Storrs skribis 2005-06-19 13:45 (-0400):
>  > All that said, I still agree with John... './' does not look like
>  > method call syntax to me.
>  
>  That's good, because it's different from all other method syntax anyway,
>  because it does not have any left hand side -- not even implied.

I don't think it's good. A method call should look like a method call.

Frankly, I don't understand the objection to using a keyword for $?SELF,
such as `self`. Most other object-oriented languages use such a keyword, if
not exactly the same one, so it will be a familiar concept. Certainly more
readily understood for a newcomer than `./method`. As a bonus, `self` is
easily searchable within the documentation, whereas `./` is not. The
argument that this keyword cannot then be defined by user code is weak, as
it would be rather hostile to use `self` for any other meaning inside of a
class. I presume it could be overridden anyway, as with the other core
built-ins, so it is not even an eternal loss, should the need actually
arise.

I missed responding to the thread the last time this subject came up, but
the more I see this syntax the less I like it, so I wanted to add another
voice to the dissention. However, if it remains official, I expect I'll
simply be naming my invocants, as chromatic has suggested.

Kurt