In general I do not like cull: and I'm really suspicious about its use.
It often reveals a lack of coherence and/or design.
Why this is not simply
BlockClosure>>ifError: errorHandlerBlock
^ self on: Error do: errorHandlerBlock
??
Hi
I look at implementation of BlockClosure>>ifError: . I did't know that
it culls arguments to errorBlock.
But what is this arguments? It is not error instance but specific
properties from it.
BlockClosure>>ifError: errorHandlerBlock
^ self on: Error do: [:ex |
errorHandlerBlock cull: ex description cull: ex receiver]
Why people doing that?
Many users of it just pass given error like
[...] ifError: [:msg :rcv | ...
rcv error: msg].
Especially it is commonly used scenario by senders of
#critical:ifError:. But it is different question.
I propose change ifError: to cull error instance.
What you think? Can be put it in Pharo 5? Such change can touch some
packages
