ingo at 2b1.de
Tue Apr 29 20:44:00 UTC 2003
Sean Charles wrote:
> On Monday, April 28, 2003, at 02:34 PM, Ingo Hohmann wrote:
>> About the winning checks, I first tried to use solely and: and or:,
>> but then decided to write equalTo:and: at least it looked a little
>> less messy (and worked ;-). Given the data structures I used, would
>> there have been a better way?
> What is 'better' grasshopper? Your way works and is readable and
> understandable. Works for me.
I just thought there might be something like, e.g.
ifAll: [ "do something"]
that may be sent to a block, and evaluates the "do sth" block, if all
expressions in the receiving block return true, or something like that
which I don't know of
> Yup. At the risk of trumpet blowing, if you visit http://www.bumpybibbers.
> com and then follow the SPLASHWORD link on the left hand side, you'll
> see a taster for a full multi-media game I've written using Squeak.
> Finished it last year. It plays pretty good. It's not there for download
> as the only way I can package it is on CD because I used morphs glued
> together and saved i.e. I've strayed from the path of declarativeness! I
> only have a crappy modem link and the total upload size is about 25MB so
> it won't be there this week! The entire site is a work-in-progress as
> there is never enough time...
Just send it to me by email, and I'll upload it for you. ;-)
About the resizing code in ChessMorph>>addButtonRow, I still haven't
figured out _why_ it works. Well, tomorrows another day.
More information about the Squeak-dev