I expected the argument to the last par to the method to expect a block, but it expects an value (returned directly to the caller). I would have expected it to behave like at:ifAbsent: instead (which expects the block and evaluates it and returns it if not found).
Guess i'll add a different set of behaviors instead: #row:col:ifAbsent: which expects a block, say.
Any other ideas?
As another question, should the comment for Matrix be updated to not be a complete comparison between Matrix and Array2D, which is no longer in the image?
Thanks, cbc
Hi Chris,
sounds good. :) Add #row:column:ifAbsent: and deprecate #at:at:#ifInvalid:. I prefer "column" over "col".
Best, Marcel Am 26.11.2017 23:29:17 schrieb Chris Cunningham cunningham.cb@gmail.com: I expected the argument to the last par to the method to expect a block, but it expects an value (returned directly to the caller). I would have expected it to behave like at:ifAbsent: instead (which expects the block and evaluates it and returns it if not found).
Guess i'll add a different set of behaviors instead: #row:col:ifAbsent: which expects a block, say.
Any other ideas?
As another question, should the comment for Matrix be updated to not be a complete comparison between Matrix and Array2D, which is no longer in the image?
Thanks, cbc
On 27.11.2017, at 09:08, Marcel Taeumel marcel.taeumel@hpi.de wrote:
Hi Chris,
sounds good. :) Add #row:column:ifAbsent: and deprecate #at:at:#ifInvalid:. I prefer "column" over "col".
Can we (also) have #at:at:ifAbsent: ? I think this would be nice…
Best regards -Tobias
Best, Marcel
Am 26.11.2017 23:29:17 schrieb Chris Cunningham cunningham.cb@gmail.com:
I expected the argument to the last par to the method to expect a block, but it expects an value (returned directly to the caller). I would have expected it to behave like at:ifAbsent: instead (which expects the block and evaluates it and returns it if not found).
Guess i'll add a different set of behaviors instead: #row:col:ifAbsent: which expects a block, say.
Any other ideas?
As another question, should the comment for Matrix be updated to not be a complete comparison between Matrix and Array2D, which is no longer in the image?
Thanks, cbc
Ok. Proposed changes in the inbox.
I kept the #..ifInvalid: calls, as they turned out to be useful (so far). But I definitely need the #...ifAbsent: varieties, besides them being the more consistently named.
And, yes, added #at:at:ifAbsent: as well. Although that feels to vague to me.
-cbc
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 1:35 AM, Tobias Pape Das.Linux@gmx.de wrote:
On 27.11.2017, at 09:08, Marcel Taeumel marcel.taeumel@hpi.de wrote:
Hi Chris,
sounds good. :) Add #row:column:ifAbsent: and deprecate
#at:at:#ifInvalid:. I prefer "column" over "col".
Can we (also) have #at:at:ifAbsent: ? I think this would be nice…
Best regards -Tobias
Best, Marcel
Am 26.11.2017 23:29:17 schrieb Chris Cunningham <
cunningham.cb@gmail.com>:
I expected the argument to the last par to the method to expect a
block, but it expects an value (returned directly to the caller). I would have expected it to behave like at:ifAbsent: instead (which expects the block and evaluates it and returns it if not found).
Guess i'll add a different set of behaviors instead: #row:col:ifAbsent:
which expects a block, say.
Any other ideas?
As another question, should the comment for Matrix be updated to not be
a complete comparison between Matrix and Array2D, which is no longer in the image?
Thanks, cbc
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org