What to believe?

stephane ducasse stephane.ducasse at free.fr
Wed Jun 27 13:10:21 UTC 2007


Hi andreas

> That is not necessarily the case. One can make an equally good  
> argument saying that "foo ifTrue:[...]" should expand to "foo  
> ifTrue:[...] ifFalse:[foo]" which is coincidentally true for  
> ifNil:ifNotNil: and *should* be true (and I'm glad we fixed this in  
> Croquet) for ifEmpty:ifNotEmpty:. In other words if it is the case  
> that:
>
>   42 ifNil:[...] => 42
>   #(1 2 3) ifEmpty:[...] => #(1 2 3)
>

Can you elaborate more on why it should be true for ifEmpty:?

> then it seems quite consistent to have
>
>   false ifTrue:[...] => false.
>
> (not that I'm proposing to change this btw, since it would break a  
> whole bunch of stuff but it's perfectly consistent with other  
> semantics that are generally deemed "intuitive")
>
> Cheers,
>   - Andreas
>
>




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list