[squeak-dev] Re: Object>>#is:? (was: Re: PackageDependencyTest)

Michael Haupt 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 mailing list