Bug? Inconsistency?: false ifTrue: [] ==> nil
Bert Freudenberg
bert at isgnw.CS.Uni-Magdeburg.De
Wed Jan 26 15:58:57 UTC 2000
On Wed, 26 Jan 2000, Andrew C. Greenberg wrote:
> think deeper!
You're right. The "nil ifNotNil:" case indeed does return the receiver. I
did not see this.
> For all of the following messages:
>
> #ifNil: #ifNotNil: #ifNil:ifNotNil #ifNotNil:#ifNil:
>
> If the receiver is boolean, then answer the value of the
> corresponding parameter block if there is one, otherwise answer self.
I like that specification (you surely meant nil for boolean). Maybe we
should put it into the method comments.
> I think things are OK.
That's what I wanted to express, although with wrong arguments.
-Bert-
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|