> |Just to test how Ruby would feel like, I modified the system to allow
> |
> |  object in array
> |
> |and
> |
> |  object not in array
> |
> |as new kinds of expressions.  Internally, Ruby uses "include?" (in the
> |second case inverted as with "not") to perform the test.  IMHO it
> |nicely fits into the language.

I would regret having more reserved syntax. The beauty of an simple
object oriented language, such as Ruby or Smalltalk, is there are so
few syntactical rules.

Keep it simple. If it can be solved using a message, then 99% of the time
it should not have reserved syntax.

If you want to add new syntax then my "shooting from the hip" reaction
would be you have not got the religion yet.

--
Patrick Logan
mailto:patrickdlogan / home.com