Hi Eliot,

On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 9:59 PM, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> regarding
>
> +    obj := parents at: obj ifAbsent: [nil].
> -    obj := parents at: obj ifAbsent: [].
>
>
> Please no.  One must know that the empty block evaluates to nil.  It is
> illiterate not to.  So the verbosity is bad; it implies uncertainty (“does
> the empty block evaluate to nil?  maybe not ‘cuz here it’s written
> explicitly”), it requires more typing, it’s ugly.

But the return value from the block is ^actually consumed^ by the
while condition, so making an explicit reference to nil greatly
improves readability.  If the value were NOT consumed, then I would
agree that no return object should be specified, however I would
implore you never to write this code:   [].   Instead:

     [ "always put an intention-revealing comment inside" ]

Why?  Because emptiness is inherently ambiguous -- e.g., did the
programmer forget to fill that part in?  Or was he intending to
actually "return nil".  Talk about uncertainty!

I've always felt our code should appeal to the _broadest_ audience
possible, so that even those illiterate in Smalltalk could still read
it and follow it.  It requires an expert Smalltalker and deep
consideration (and prioritization!) of the human <---> Smalltalk
"negotiation" to write code that is, all at once, terse, beautiful and
able be easily readable even to the broadest possible audience.

Best,
  Chris