[BUG] two different ways to handle assert:
Daniel V. Oppenheim
music at watson.ibm.com
Tue Jun 12 15:24:22 UTC 2001
The problem is that the system has two different implementations -- one
expects a block as argument, the other a boolean. This is not good.
At 11:09 AM 6/12/01 -0700, you wrote:
>You can expect allways a block, and implement
>By the way, this is my first message to the list and I must say thanks for
>Squeak to the people that made it and to all the people that works to make
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Daniel V. Oppenheim" <music at watson.ibm.com>
>To: "Squeak Mailing List" <squeak at cs.uiuc.edu>
>Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 1:26 PM
>Subject: [BUG] two different ways to handle assert:
> > The system handles <assert:> in two different ways: Object expects a Block
> > as argument, whereas all other 3 classes expect a Boolean. This is not a
> > good idea... However, there are only 39 senders so its an easy fix;
> > slightly complicated with the implementation of <assert> in BlockContext,
> > but that only has 7 senders.
> > I think aBoolean makes more sense than aBlock as argument.
> > Since I need to fix this anyhow in order to file in my own code I will be
> > happy to make the change, update all system methods, and send the fix
> > but being new to the squeak-fix process please let me know what is the
> > preferred way of handling this.
> > Thanks
> > Danny Oppenheim
> > ---
> > Dr. Daniel V.
> > Oppenheim
> > Computer Music Center
> > IBM T.J. Watson Research Center phone: (914) 945-1989
> > P. O. Box 218 (or Route 134) fax: (914) 945-3434
> > Yorktown Heights, NY 10598 www.research.ibm.com/music
Dr. Daniel V.
Computer Music Center
IBM T.J. Watson Research Center phone: (914) 945-1989
P. O. Box 218 (or Route 134) fax: (914) 945-3434
Yorktown Heights, NY 10598 www.research.ibm.com/music
More information about the Squeak-dev