[BUG][FIX][MCP] Morph >> subMorphsDo: ( [closed] Morphic
framework assumes Morph >> initialize )
Ned Konz
ned at bike-nomad.com
Wed Jun 11 16:08:55 UTC 2003
On Wednesday 11 June 2003 08:02 am, Brent Vukmer wrote:
> Right after I sent my initial post, I realized that I had overidden
> Morph >> initialize in BugFixArchiveViewer >> initialize, without
> making a call to "super initialize". My bad!
>
> While fixing my code, though, I noticed that lots of methods in the
> Morphic framework assume that submorphs is not nil. Is that an
> optimization to avoid lots of isNil checks?
As I said, submorphs should never be nil.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ned Konz [mailto:ned at bike-nomad.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 10:18 AM
> > To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
> > Subject: Re: [BUG][FIX][MCP] Morph >> subMorphsDo:
> >
> > On Wednesday 11 June 2003 05:32 am, Brent Vukmer wrote:
> > > From Squeak3.6alpha of 17 March 2003 [latest update: #5259]
> >
> > on 11 June
> >
> > > 2003 at 8:32:02 am:
> > >
> > > Morph >> subMorphsDo: did not check whether the subMorphs ivar
> > > is empty or nil. Now it does. This is a 1-liner fix.
> >
> > Yes, but submorphs should never be nil (it gets set in
> > Morph>>initialize), and there was no problem if it was empty
> > (though perhaps this is an optimization?)
> >
> > --
> > Ned Konz
> > http://bike-nomad.com
> > GPG key ID: BEEA7EFE
--
Ned Konz
http://bike-nomad.com
GPG key ID: BEEA7EFE
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|