That sounds correct. In this context, my "universal ifTrue:" is really terrible idea.
Thanks for clarification! pf > Why would you do such aberration? > > It goes against the "fail noisily" "Rule of Repair": Developers should > design programs that fail in a manner that is easy to localize and > diagnose or in other words “fail noisily”. This rule aims to prevent > incorrect output from a program from becoming an input and corrupting > the output of other code undetected. > > It is semantically incorrect, if needed, I don't see why, you sould > implement it in your own class. But when I needed to do such "if" > handlers, I did it using meaningful selectors like #ifGranted: or > #ifSucceeded:, or the well known #ifEmpty: > > Regards, > > Esteban A. Maringolo > > > 2018-03-19 9:40 GMT-03:00 Petr Fischer <petr.fisc...@me.com>: > >> Infinite recursion ? > >> > >> You use #ifTrue: in your implementation of Object>>#ifTrue: > >> > >> Plus, non-booleans cannot meaningfully respond. > >> > >> How would you define the semantics of > >> > >> 123 ifTrue: [ ... ] > > > > 123 is not "true", so, ignore the block. > > Do the ifTrue block only if the receiver is instance of True (true). > > Everything else is not "true" :) > > > > I missed the recursion, yes, but it could be done another way. > > > >> > >> > On 19 Mar 2018, at 10:18, Petr Fischer <petr.fisc...@me.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > Hello, I have some sort of philosophical question about ifTrue:/ifFalse: > >> > implementation. > >> > > >> > Now, ifTrue: is defined in the Boolean class (subclassResponsibility) + > >> > in True and False classes, so, we can send this message to the boolean > >> > expressions (instances) only, otherwise DND occurs. > >> > > >> > But we can also define one universal ifTrue: right in the Object class, > >> > in this style: > >> > > >> > Object>>ifTrue: .... > >> > (self = true) ifTrue: [ ... ]. > >> > > >> > then, we can send ifTrue: message to ANY object and it will work > >> > correctly without DND exception on non-boolean objects. > >> > > >> > Is something bad about this idea? > >> > > >> > Thanks! pf > >> > > >> > >> > > >
