Another reason is that there could be a nil in your collection, by design or
not, so that returning nil on not found would result in both of these
(OrderedCollection with: nil) detect: [ :each | each isNil ] ifNone: [
nil ].
(OrderedCollection with: #somethingElse) detect: [ :each | each isNil ]
ifNone: [ nil ].
being nil, so that you don't know the answer to what you want to know.
On 16 Oct 2012, at 20:40, Mariano Martinez Peck <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 7:46 PM, sergio_101 <[email protected]> wrote:
> i had a problem earlier, thinking that if i did a detect: on an
> ordered collection, and the item was not found, i would get back nil.
> it turns out that it throws an error..
>
> to get this to work, you use:
>
> detect:ifNone:
>
> my only question is... why is this so?
>
> what is the motivation behind throwing an error rather than returning nil?
>
> i guess i would like to understand the 'smalltalkiness' about this,
> just in case i run into something like this in the future..
>
>
> Smalltalk tries to be explicit and not to put things under the carpet. So in
> this case, it will throw an exception instead of returning nil.
> If that is what you want, then you can always do detect: [ ... ] ifNone: [
> nil ] and you will get the behavior you want.
> So, forget for a moment all you background of any programming language you
> have, why would you expect to return nil? ;)
> Anyway, we have to admit, there still places in Smalltalk where we return nil
> instead of throwing an exception.
>
> thanks!
>
> ----
> peace,
> sergio
> photographer, journalist, visionary
>
> http://www.ThoseOptimizeGuys.com
> http://www.CodingForHire.com
> http://www.coffee-black.com
> http://www.painlessfrugality.com
> http://www.twitter.com/sergio_101
> http://www.facebook.com/sergio101
>
> --
> Mariano
> http://marianopeck.wordpress.com
--
Sven Van Caekenberghe
http://stfx.eu
Smalltalk is the Red Pill
