[squeak-dev] DictionaryIntegrityTest >> #testDictionaries failure
Chris Muller
asqueaker at gmail.com
Wed May 15 01:44:27 UTC 2013
Yea, that would be better than dealing with the Association. In fact
that would seem to bring a nice symmetry to the API since we have
#at:ifAbsent: + #at:ifPresent: pair, it stands to reason to have a
counterpart for at:ifAbsentPut:. We should add it..
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de> wrote:
> On 2013-05-15, at 00:03, Chris Muller <ma.chris.m at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> | a |
>>> a := dictionary associationAt: x.
>>> a value: a value + 1
>>>
>>> instead of:
>>>
>>> | v |
>>> v := dictionary at: x.
>>> dictionary at: x put: v + 1.
>>
>> Oh, nice.. Now I feel like I need to go through my code and see if
>> I'm doing it the double-lookup way.. :) Thanks.
>
> How about this?
>
> dictionary at: x ifPresentPut: [:v | v + 1].
>
> - Bert -
>
>
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|