Daniel Schierbeck wrote:
> +1
>
> I only have one concern: I think the syntax is kinda weird. It resembles
> the class definition syntax, but I can't see why it should. When you
> write "class A < B" you're saying "class A inherits from class B" or
> "class A is affected by class B". If we apply the same to "cut A < B",
> it would be "cut A is affected by class B", which isn't the case. Why
> not use "cut A > B", "cut A affects class C". The singleton syntax could
> be like this "cut >> obj".

Your .16 Yen is appreciated :) In fact we have discussed similar
notation:

  class A > Ac
    # advice
  end

We decided against, mainly because it looks too much like normal
subclassing. though it is certaintly a possibility.

How I say 'cut Ac < A' is "cut Ac cuts A.", though I normally drop the
first 'cut', "Ac cuts A".

T.