On Mon, 11 Oct 2010, Nicolas Cellier wrote:
2010/10/11 <[email protected]>:
"Sven Van Caekenberghe"<[email protected]> wrote:
I tried to follow your different releases in Pharo 1.1.1, right now I have 433
tests, 3 failures (#testReadWriteLargeAmount), 11 errors (#..base64 and
#..multipleBufferSize). If will send you the report.
I have been trying some of the examples from the doc pages (google code
project), this simple one still fails:
((1 to: 10) reading collecting: [:x | x * x]) rest
Ah, that's because of the use of #cull: like semantics with exception handlers
in some places, mostly
... on: Incomplete do: #count.
We can certainly replace all those with regular block style.
I see, #handleSignal: just calls valueWithPossibleArgument: instead of #cull...
I don't well see the interest of adding arguments to #on:do: handler,
since they would all be filled with nils...
IMO, this is because we didn't have #cull: previously, so we used an
existsing more powerfull version.
Originally the method sent #valueWithPossibleArgs:. I changed it to
#valueWithPossibleArgument:, because it's 100% backwards compatible. But I
agree that #cull: is suitable here too.
Levente
To me, it should be self to just send #cull:
Nicolas
_______________________________________________
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
