[Pharo-users] ifNotEmpty(Do):

monty monty2 at programmer.net
Sun Oct 11 07:11:44 EDT 2015


Not only isn't it easier to understand, it's harder. With collections "do:" normally means enumeration (do:, allButLastDo:, reverseDo:), but ifNotEmptyDo: doesn't enumerate the receiver.

> Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2015 at 5:29 AM
> From: "Marcus Denker" <marcus.denker at inria.fr>
> To: "Any question about pharo is welcome" <pharo-users at lists.pharo.org>
> Subject: Re: [Pharo-users] ifNotEmpty(Do):
>
> 
> > On 10 Oct 2015, at 18:55, Peter Uhnák <i.uhnak at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Collection>>ifNotEmpty: comment says
> > 
> > "If the block has an argument, eval with the receiver as its argument,
> > but it might be better to use ifNotEmptyDo: to make the code easier to
> > understand"
> > 
> 
> We should update the comment. I think the comment is wrong: there is nothing more
> easier to understand with # ifNotEmptyDo: vs. # ifNotEmpty.
> 
> > yet when I do that, Code Critic complains:
> > ifNotEmptyDo: should not be used as ifNotEmpty: works for blocks with arguments, too.
> > 
> > 
> > 1) who is right? what should I use?
> > 2) shouldn't one be deprecated then? (or maybe one of them is to be compatible with other smalltalk?)
> 
> We did not deprecated as this is used a lot in old code… we should move it to a compatibility package.
> 
> 	Marcus
> 
> 
>




More information about the Pharo-users mailing list