Shouldn't ifEmpty return self?
Andreas Raab
andreas.raab at gmx.de
Mon Jun 12 23:08:19 UTC 2006
Klaus D. Witzel wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 00:13:18 +0200, Andreas Raab wrote:
>> Klaus D. Witzel wrote:
>>> Ah. And I was believing the description in True>>#ifTrue:
>>> -------
>>> ifTrue: alternativeBlock
>>> "Answer the value of alternativeBlock. Execution does not actually
>>> reach here because the expression is compiled in-line."
>>> ^alternativeBlock value
>>> -------
>>> So the bug is in the documentation? This is not an easy one: who
>>> would doubt the implementation of such an essential behavior?
>>
>> I don't see a bug in either the implementation nor the documentation
>> of ifTrue:/ifFalse:. You need to look at False>>ifTrue: if you want to
>> understand the described behavior of ifEmpty:
>
> No. I do not look into the implementation of #ifFalse: for finding out
> if the implemntaion of #ifTrue: matches its own specification ;-) Nobody
> does :-D
Geesh. Try to do some reading next time before you write something. I
was talking about ifTrue: (not ifFalse:) since you were questioning the
*implementation* of True>>ifTrue: (which is obviously correct) in the
context of the ifEmpty: discussion which is just as obviously determined
by False>>ifTrue:. But if you're really into splitting hairs, then go
change "Execution does not actually reach here" into "Execution does not
usually reach here" which is arguably more accurate.
- Andreas
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|