Well... you have the cascading that provides you that. book1 title:'C Programming'; author: 'Nuha Ali '; subject: 'C Programming Tutorial'; book_id: 6495407.
What I would like, sometimes, is the option to nest cascades, very much like the WITH DO construct of Pascal, Basic and others. But also I take this as a hint of some refactoring needed in my objects. Regards, Esteban A. Maringolo El lun., 4 mar. 2019 a las 10:07, Tim Mackinnon (<tim@testit.works>) escribió: > > I’ve noticed that as we’ve progressed there has been a move to more concise > and fluid code - e.g. I quite like the new String streaming stuff > > e.g. > > ^ String > streamContents: [ :stream | > stream nextPut: …. ] > > > So I was wondering why we don’t have a construct like Pascals with to avoid > Book1.title, Book1.author etc. > > (* book 1 specification *) > With Book1 do > begin > title := 'C Programming'; > author := 'Nuha Ali '; > subject := 'C Programming Tutorial'; > book_id := 6495407; > end; > > > I often find it a bit tedious with code like the following which then needs > an instvar... > > self classes do: [ :class | > | metaclass | > metaclass := class metaclass. > metaclass xxxx. > mataclass yyyy. > ] > > > I’m wondering why we don’t have #with:do: > > class with: class metaclass do: [:metaclass | > metaclass xxx. > ] > > > But when such things aren’t there - there is usually a good reason and I’m > curious … this said, there are all kinds of other such tricks (which I rarely > use that I keep coming across). > > Tim >
