we add^H^H^H had
2013/11/4 Nicolas Cellier <[email protected]> > Beware of cases where you don't have total order. > For example, in recent Squeak/Pharo we add to redefine the whole set of > operators on numbers, not only < and =, just because NaN is not ordered... > > > 2013/11/4 kilon alios <[email protected]> > >> It looks to me that this would be the source of less readable code, I >> prefer the choosing message approach by Kent Beck (Smalltalk Best Practice >> Patterns) where intent is clearly stated. Unless there is an advantage I am >> missing here. This is an example that less verbose code does not mean >> simpler code. Of course this will largely depend on the specifics of the >> case used. >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Yuriy Tymchuk <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Now she someone want’s to have a comparable object he has to use >>> TComparable and define < and =. >>> With spaceship he has to define only <=>. I’m not sure what’s better. >>> Just wanted to hear other peoples opinion >>> >>> On 04 Nov 2013, at 13:35, Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > do you have a real use case? >>> > >>> > Stef >>> > >>> > On Nov 4, 2013, at 1:32 PM, Yuriy Tymchuk <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> >> Hi everyone. >>> >> >>> >> I’m wandering if there was any sort of a discussion about a spaceship >>> method used in Ruby. >>> >> >>> >> The concept is that you should implement a method <=> >>> >> that returns something negative if the receiver is smaller then a >>> parameter, >>> >> positive when the receiver is greater then a parameter, >>> >> and 0 if they are equal. >>> >> >>> >> This way if you are implementing comparable object’s the only method >>> you have to redefine is spaceship (<=>). >>> >> >>> >> Yes, I know that i Pharo you have to only redefine < and =. But maybe >>> it would be interesting to use spaceship :) >>> >> >>> >> What do you think? >>> >> Cheers! >>> >> Uko >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> >> >
