[squeak-dev] Re: Object>>#is:? (was: Re: PackageDependencyTest)
mhaupt at gmail.com
Thu Mar 4 20:42:10 UTC 2010
2010/3/4 Stéphane Rollandin <lecteur at zogotounga.net>:
> If #is: implementation has to reflect a class hierarchy, then I don't see
> how it can be any better than #isKindOf: and #isMemberOf:
#isKindOf: accepts a Class, while #is: accepts a Symbol. Helps decoupling.
> Yes, because #isXXX messages are quite special methods: they mostly return
> mere ^true or ^false. So we are talking in this specific case about
> replacing a simple modular, orthogonal set of clear implementations with
> something much more complex and messy.
I really fail to see how #is: is complex and messy. Really.
> Now I would appreciate a simple answer about what's wrong in my example; if
> there is confusion at this level, the #is: idea is certainly not as
> straightforward as it may seem.
All right, I will take another look at it. I must have missed something. :-)
More information about the Squeak-dev