+ 1 :)
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 2:16 PM, Petr Fischer <petr.fisc...@me.com> wrote: > That sounds correct. In this context, my "universal ifTrue:" is really > terrible idea. > > Thanks for clarification! pf > > >> Why would you do such aberration? >> >> It goes against the "fail noisily" "Rule of Repair": Developers should >> design programs that fail in a manner that is easy to localize and >> diagnose or in other words “fail noisily”. This rule aims to prevent >> incorrect output from a program from becoming an input and corrupting >> the output of other code undetected. >> >> It is semantically incorrect, if needed, I don't see why, you sould >> implement it in your own class. But when I needed to do such "if" >> handlers, I did it using meaningful selectors like #ifGranted: or >> #ifSucceeded:, or the well known #ifEmpty: >> >> Regards, >> >> Esteban A. Maringolo >> >> >> 2018-03-19 9:40 GMT-03:00 Petr Fischer <petr.fisc...@me.com>: >> >> Infinite recursion ? >> >> >> >> You use #ifTrue: in your implementation of Object>>#ifTrue: >> >> >> >> Plus, non-booleans cannot meaningfully respond. >> >> >> >> How would you define the semantics of >> >> >> >> 123 ifTrue: [ ... ] >> > >> > 123 is not "true", so, ignore the block. >> > Do the ifTrue block only if the receiver is instance of True (true). >> > Everything else is not "true" :) >> > >> > I missed the recursion, yes, but it could be done another way. >> > >> >> >> >> > On 19 Mar 2018, at 10:18, Petr Fischer <petr.fisc...@me.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > Hello, I have some sort of philosophical question about >> >> > ifTrue:/ifFalse: implementation. >> >> > >> >> > Now, ifTrue: is defined in the Boolean class (subclassResponsibility) + >> >> > in True and False classes, so, we can send this message to the boolean >> >> > expressions (instances) only, otherwise DND occurs. >> >> > >> >> > But we can also define one universal ifTrue: right in the Object class, >> >> > in this style: >> >> > >> >> > Object>>ifTrue: .... >> >> > (self = true) ifTrue: [ ... ]. >> >> > >> >> > then, we can send ifTrue: message to ANY object and it will work >> >> > correctly without DND exception on non-boolean objects. >> >> > >> >> > Is something bad about this idea? >> >> > >> >> > Thanks! pf >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >
