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