Very interesting stef, thanks a lot... but now, I'm not sure of what I did with OB-Tools (I just replace ifNotNil: [ :blah | ... ] with ifNotNilDo: [ :blah | ... ]... I understand why the first version of ifNotNil: is done like that in pharo... but what I do with compatibility? will pharo still support ifNotNilDo:? And, I also agree with lukas. blahDo: is ugly, if you have an elegant solution... but, what I have to do with OB-Tools? I replace methods (like before) or better I create a package OB-Tools-Squeak with extensions for Squeak?
I know... this is hardly a "pharo issue", but maybe can provide pharo developers of clues of what to do if they are trying to keep compatibiity (I know, that's not a pharo goal -compatibility-, but sometimes may be necessary). Cheers, Esteban On 2009-01-27 13:09:30 -0200, Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected]> said: > I found this blog entry really nice on this specific question. > > http://blog.3plus4.org/2007/04/ > > > On Jan 27, 2009, at 1:44 PM, Esteban Lorenzano wrote: > >> Hi, >> I'm trying to understand why pharo modifies squeak behavior of >> ifNotNil: and introduces the optional parameter... is there a reason? >> >> Cheers, >> Esteban >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pharo-project mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
