Back in September, Ned submitted an ENH with some methods that are used by the RB. One set of methods were the #ifEmpty/#ifNotEmpty: variations. After some discussion, it seemed there was consensus to add these methods in forms that take 0-arg blocks as arguments (original message quoted below).
Does this need to get posted as a new, separate ENH? I tried to check if it had already been put into 3.7a, but the 3.7a images are segfaulting my VM and I don't have time to figure out building a new one atm.
I don't mind making and posting the changeset if desired, though because of the above I can't test it in the latest 3.7 right now.
Julian
Some time ago, Andreas wrote:
Hi Daniel,
-1: SharedPool deliberately doesn't use dictionary protocols.
Well ok, but - A. RB needs to know whether the bindings includes: name. B. In 3.6 some pools are dictionaries.
I understand this. The point was that we should think hard about which protocols _do_ make sense for shared pools and for which ones we should make up new ones. I'm not decided on #keys by the way - most of the trouble is modifying pools and keys happens to be an inquiry. So I could live with that.
- Collection>>ifEmpty:ifNotEmpty: and variations.
-1: This should not be sneaked in as a "small change" given that it significantly extends the collection protocol.
Well, you caught me. Let the arguments begin :_)
And is questionable in the semantics - the asymmetry between #ifEmpty: (0-arg block) and #ifNotEmpty: (1-arg block) greatly disturbs me.
Ok. I can go for 0-arg #ifNotEmpty:. Then we're ok? anybody else have strong feeling either way?
I'd be happy with any symmetric solution.
Cheers,
- Andreas
Am 01.12.2003 um 19:18 schrieb Julian Fitzell:
Back in September, Ned submitted an ENH with some methods that are used by the RB. One set of methods were the #ifEmpty/#ifNotEmpty: variations. After some discussion, it seemed there was consensus to add these methods in forms that take 0-arg blocks as arguments (original message quoted below).
Does this need to get posted as a new, separate ENH? I tried to check if it had already been put into 3.7a, but the 3.7a images are segfaulting my VM and I don't have time to figure out building a new one atm.
We really need an "official" 3.6 unix vm that does not crash with 3.7a...
I don't mind making and posting the changeset if desired, though because of the above I can't test it in the latest 3.7 right now.
I checked: No, ifEmpty is not yet there. So it would be nice if you could submitt the changeset.
Marcus
-- Marcus Denker marcus@ira.uka.de
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org