Hi, 8. 1. 2016 v 17:11, Tudor Girba <[email protected]>:
> Hi, > > Denis says that right now, to use ifError: you do: > > [...] ifError: [:msg :rcv | … ] > > and he would like to write this: > > [...] ifError: [:error | … ] But for this we have on:do: message, right? Do we need ifError:? Cheers, Juraj > > I agree with him. The problem is that this might generate a bit of ripple > effects in external code. This is when Stephan came in and said that if we > would have a way to investigate all external repositories that are open we > could do such refactorings more boldly. > > Does it make more sense now? Or did I get it wrong? > > Cheers, > Doru > > > >> On Jan 8, 2016, at 10:05 PM, stepharo <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi denis >> I do not understand the problem and I'm convinced that you are right >> so can anybody explain to me the point made by denis? >> >> Stef >> >> Le 7/1/16 13:11, Denis Kudriashov a écrit : >>> 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 > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > www.feenk.com > > "Be rather willing to give than demanding to get." > > > > >
