> :) :) This is funny. VisualWorks has exactly the same bug^H^H^Hfeature. > And if you look at the ANSI standard (ok, this is from the draft, but it is > essentially the actual document) there is an exception for precisely this > case, See the last sentence in section 3.4.4 Blocks: > > If a block has no <block body> or no <statements> in its <block body> then > the value of the block is undefined.
Ok, I did not check that document. I somehow expected that all empty blocks would return nil. > Which allows [] to be implemented as e.g. [Random new next]. In fact both > VisualWorks and Squeak answer the last argument: > [:a ] value: 1 1 > [:a :b|] value: 1 value: 2 2 > [:a :b :c :d :e :f :g :h| ] valueWithArguments: (1 to: 8) 8 > [:a | nil] value: 1 nil > [:a :b| nil] value: 1 value: 2 nil > At least it is consistent whether the block is inlined or not ;) > 1+2 ifNotNil: [:arg|] 3 > It as ever been so. Thank you for the additional insight. I learned something new on the Smalltalk semantics today :-) I will fix my code then. > P.S. I'm caught between wanting to fix it and wanting to let sleeping dogs > lie. I'd like to know what all the other dialects do. If a substantial > majority have the same curio I think we have to live with this, uh, > ornament. Just to be clear, making it a preference is a sick joke on my > part. I think we'd better let it sleep. In my image I have 61 empty blocks with one or more argument. Some of them might depend on that hidden behavior. Lukas -- Lukas Renggli http://www.lukas-renggli.ch _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
