On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Andres Valloud < avalloud@smalltalk.comcastbiz.net> wrote:
Keep in mind that finding senders will be more difficult, and that you may or may not find the code you're looking for later if it is "non-standard" (e.g.: with the rewrite tool, you will have to search potentially many times to find all occurrences of a certain piece of code). Finally, with some constructs, using a symbol as a valuable may not always work as expected (e.g.: 1 to: 10 do: #squared).
IMO, it looks cool, but in the long run it's more of a maintenance problem.
100% agree. It was just funny for me, how could I do that, just implementing Synbol >> value: Just something curious and funny. Not to really use it.
On 10/30/10 13:01 , Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
Hi. Today I was giving a lesson and I was trying something something like this:
ByteString allInstances select: [ :aString | aString size > 1000 ]
But sometimes, we want (not in this example) delegate the behavior to the object, for example:
ByteString allInstances select: [ :aString | aString isTooBig ]
And then....I (actually, a classmate told me) realised that Symbol understands value: too. So I can do this:
ByteString allInstances select: #isTooBig
and it also works :)
Interesting, isn't it ?
cheers
Mariano
ps: if everybody already know this, please forgive my completly ignorance