On Apr 30, 2005, at 12:05 PM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Patch 6159 in 3.9 has the fix (this can also be applied to 3.7)
> SequenceableCollection>>before: target ifAbsent: exceptionBlock
> 	"Answer the receiver's element immediately before target. Answer
> 	the result of evaluating the exceptionBlock if target is not an
> element
> 	of the receiver, or if there are no elements before it."
>
> 	| index |
> 	index _ self indexOf: target.
> 	^ (index == 0 or: [index == 1])
> 		ifTrue: [exceptionBlock value]
> 		ifFalse: [self at: index - 1]

Thank you. A question: how was it decided that the comment was correct 
and the code was wrong? I ask for two reasons, one practical and one 
philosophical: (1) Will it break anybody's code to change this code? 
(2) Is there a unit test that covers this, and if so what was it 
testing?

(The topic of code "versus" comments has been discussed this past week 
on ruby-talk.)

Jim
-- 
Jim Menard, jimm at io.com, http://www.io.com/~jimm/
"Don't eat crackers in the bed of your future or you'll get ... 
scratchy!"
     -- The Tick