On Oct 1, 2009, at 5:23 47PM, Miguel Enrique Cobá Martinez wrote: > +1 to fix it one and for all. > > Remember, from the pharo-project.org page: > > "We want to create a better Smalltalk and be free to enhance it > without > fear of backwards compatibility to Squeak." > > This discussion is trying to achieve backwards compatibility even if > that means not fixing this bug. > > So, lets fix it and as the packages are going ported to Pharo, make > the > necessary changes to them. When a lot of packages (if any) are using > the > new semantics, the Squeak guys might consider to use the Pharo fix. > > No more discussion using the backwards compatibility argument. > > -- > Miguel Cobá > http://miguel.leugim.com.mx > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
To quote myself: "I agree, the issue is whether the default behaviour of handling empty input and cancel the same way is what's broken, or the fact that no way of handling such a case at all is provided. Considering the amount of times I've had to add ifEmpty: clauses doing the same as ifNil: to request: call return values in VW (which returns nil), I'd say the latter." Recognizing there is a bug doesn't mean that there is just one possible solution, or that the one which is not backwards compatible is necessarily the best. Cheers, Henry _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
