I never suggested to remove the blocks!!! only make Object and Block
polymorphic with respect to #value....

TIA,

Diego Gomez Deck

>Hi Diego (and everyone else),
>
>     I just wanted to give you one reason why I think Richard has
>suggested that the Object>>value idea won't work.  The reason that
>ifTrue:ifFalse: uses blocks is because blocks delay execution.  In other
>words, you want ifTrue:ifFalse: to only execute one of the possibilities
>and not both.  Using a block is a great way to delay their execution
>because the block waits until the value message is sent before it executes
>the code inside of it.
>
>     Here's a "tangible" example.  Suppose that you have two
>instances, a and b, of a class that answers to a message called
>incrementValue.  What the incrementValue method actually does is to
>increment some instance variable by some amount.  If we implement the
>suggestion and then write
>
>cond ifTrue: a incrementValue ifFalse: b incrementValue.
>
>then we will not get the behavior that we want.  In this case, both a and
>b end up executing their incrementValue methods regardless of the
>condition because we have not delayed their execution.  However,
>
>cond ifTrue: [ a incrementValue ] ifFalse: [ b incrementValue ].
>
>works great since we don't execute both possibilities.
>
>     -Hank
>
>On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:
>
>> Diego Gomez Deck <DiegoGomezDeck at ConsultAr.com> suggested:
>>     Object>>value
>> 	^ self
>>
>> Please, don't anybody do this.  It seems quite common for beginners,
>> used to other languages, to write
>> 	cond ifTrue: exp1 ifFalse: exp2
>> when they really mean
>> 	cond ifTrue: [exp1] ifFalse: [exp2].
>>
>> The sooner this is rejected, the sooner they understand how
ifTrue:ifFalse:
>> is supposed to work.
>> 	
>> 	The other message is:
>> 	
>> 	Object>>, anObject
>> 		^ OrderedCollection with:self with:anObject
>> 	
>> IMHO, it is helpful if each message means one thing.
>> If "a , b" always means "make a new sequence with the elements of a
followed
>> by the elements of b", I can cope.  But if it means "make a new sequence
>> (either with a as an element or the elements of a as elements)
followed by
>> the elements of b", I'll get lost.  The more complicated the description
>> of a method, the harder it is to use.
>> 	
>>
>>
>
>