[squeak-dev] notNil, et al, to ProtoObject?

Levente Uzonyi leves at elte.hu
Sat Oct 26 20:11:27 UTC 2013


On Sat, 26 Oct 2013, Chris Muller wrote:

> Does it make sense to have 5 of the 9 nil-testing methods on
> ProtoObject, and the remaining 4 on Object?  It seems like the various
> forms of nil-testing are something any code should feel free to do.
>
> I think we should move the remaining 4 to ProtoObject.

It depends on the role of ProtoObject and Object. Which are those methods?


Levente

>
>
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 5:38 PM,  <commits at source.squeak.org> wrote:
>> Levente Uzonyi uploaded a new version of Collections to project The Trunk:
>> http://source.squeak.org/trunk/Collections-ul.542.mcz
>>
>> ==================== Summary ====================
>>
>> Name: Collections-ul.542
>> Author: ul
>> Time: 26 October 2013, 12:22:26.493 am
>> UUID: e52fefbe-fb04-46f4-a956-f7bbcb5c8965
>> Ancestors: Collections-cmm.541
>>
>> Make Dictionary >> #includesKey: more lightweight.
>>
>> =============== Diff against Collections-cmm.541 ===============
>>
>> Item was changed:
>>   ----- Method: Dictionary>>includesKey: (in category 'testing') -----
>>   includesKey: key
>>         "Answer whether the receiver has a key equal to the argument, key."
>>
>> +        ^(array at: (self scanFor: key)) ~~ nil "We could use #notNil here, but ProtoObject doesn't understand it."!
>> -       self at: key ifAbsent: [^false].
>> -       ^true!
>>
>>
>
>


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list