Thierry Goubier <[email protected]> writes: > 2015-10-05 14:53 GMT+02:00 Damien Cassou <[email protected]>: > >> The comment of the following method seems to be more an explanation of >> the implementation than of the expected behavior. Should we change that >> to something like: "Return an instance of RBBlockNode representing the >> receiver's AST." >> >> Which would completely hide the reason for going backward one step in the > bytecode. > > I'd vote for adding to the current comment.
the existing comment is useful, I agree. https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/16721/Comment-of-BlockClosure-sourceNode-is-unclear -- Damien Cassou http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st "Success is the ability to go from one failure to another without losing enthusiasm." --Winston Churchill
