> On Jan 5, 2015, at 12:07 PM, Henrik Johansen <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>> On 05 Jan 2015, at 12:06 , Sebastian Sastre <[email protected]
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>> but not putting it on Object would change the feature since you do want it
>> returning self on that case.
>
> No. In that case, you want to use ifNil: , not ifNilOrEmpty:.
> The only thing Object >> ifNilOrEmpty would support, is putting both
> collections and non-collection in the same variable, which is usually a bad
> idea to begin with,
> since it will lead to "are you a collection or single instance?" checks in
> almost every user of said variable.
>
Hi Henry,
I think you are talking of a different feature or maybe promoting that things
should not be treated as possibly nil or empty collections which is
understandable but I’m treating the programers as good citizens that know what
they do and bear the consequences (not as beasts that should be educated or
indoctrinated or prevented on how to use code and do things)
Whatever the case does your idea pass this test?
testIfNilOrEmpty
| stuff thing |
stuff := nil.
self assert: stuff equals: nil.
self assert: thing equals: nil.
thing := stuff ifNilOrEmpty: [ 42 ].
self assert: thing equals: 42.
stuff := 1984.
thing := stuff ifNilOrEmpty: [ 42 ].
self deny: thing = nil.
self assert: thing equals: 1984.
self deny: thing = 42.
