Hehe, it wouldn't surprise me if some of those examples would compile to the same byte codes. Have you tried decompiling to see what you get?
-- Cheers, Peter. On 5 mar 2010, at 08.22, Igor Stasenko <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > I just realized, that one can completely avoid using ifTrue/ifFalse > branches, but use #or: and #and: instead. > > a > b ifTrue: [ ... ] > could be written as: > a > b and: [ ... ] > > a > b ifFalse: [ ... ] > could be written as: > a > b or: [ ... ] > > and > a > b ifTrue: [ self foo ] ifFalse: [ self bar ] > could be written as: > > a > b and: [ self foo]; or:[ self bar ] > > :) > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko AKA sig. > > _______________________________________________ > 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
