1(smallInt object) receive message 'to' with parameter 5 (smallInt object) return numeric range, then you send 'do; message with parameter being a block that evaluate for each element in range.
Smalltalk is about objects and message passing. Spry only use Smalltalk syntax.
And no, your description of how it works in Smalltalk is wrong - #to:do: is implemented in the receiver (1).
In Spry we are calling an infix function named to:do: and the only real difference to Smalltalk in this case is the fact that the dispatch of to:do: is not polymorphic. But as I described in other comments I am working on polymorphic functions as a way to reach similar abstraction levels.
Your infix functions would need to live somewhere probably in global scope with makes then no different than language constructs.
I would love to see new Smalltalk implementation that is not a Walled Garden. Making a Smalltalk impure is not a way foward imo. You work is interesting but what we need is Smalltalk VM on modern back-end like LLVM and better concurrency.
I know Smalltalk VERY well, and Spry is trying to experiment. I think polymorphic functions can be just as powerful as a class based model, even more so, and still feel similar. But i need to write examples to show it.
(1 to: 5) do: [:x | Transcript show: x ]
https://www.gnu.org/software/smalltalk/manual-base/html_node...