On 1 January 2011 18:15, Sebastian Sastre <[email protected]> wrote: > ('if this isn''t broken' copyFrom: 15) ~= 'broken' ifTrue:['this is > screwed'] ifFalse:['this is intuitive']
my first thought about it was that it should answer own copy , starting from 15th element :) > Evaluate that in any Pharo workspace and it will show you. > Reported here. > Status? invalid but then i saw its implementation... ouch... > Came on guys. Really? > I ask because, if so, situation goes like this: > A. we think again and decide to do the right thing or we go with the > alternative which is > B. we leave it as invalid, as it is right now, and > 1. we mislead even to smalltalkers not familiarized to squeak/pharo > 2. we rationalize some clever way to see it as a feature even if it will > mislead everybody (even ourselves in a hurry) > 3. we lay a foundation to lightly use protocol that is typically used in > collections (to do dangerous things like instVar manipulation) > 4. we break encapsulation and manipulate extremely primitive things in a > common sounding selector. > 5. we work harder on trying to give the impression that we're leaving it > like that because we're smarter than the confused people that tried to use > it (proving to them that we're dumb) > 6. we get involved in an unnecessarily complicated way of thinking that will > complicate unnecessarily our future (guaranteed) > 7. we learn how to maintain a screwed attitude in front of people trying to > use intuition when using pharo > 8. we stay comfortable (on the wrong foundation and for the wrong reasons) > That would leave us with this question in the table: > what is compatible with the Pharo's mission? is it A or B? > hey. slow down.. 8 arguments is too much for it, but i can understand how deeply such thing could hurt :) This is really screwed primitive. -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
