I think 5 + 'hello' is plain wrong. In these cases: 5 + (1 to: 10) 5 + (1@5) the message shouldn't be conmutative. What I mean is that I don't want that to be the same as: (1 to: 10) + 5 (1 @ 5) + 5 On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Guillermo Polito <guillermopolito@gmail.com
wrote:
I feel these pieces of code aren't really explicit in what they do
5 + 'hello'
5 + (1 to: 10)
5 + (1@5)
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Guillermo Polito < guillermopolito@gmail.com> wrote:
Well Collection and Point understand that message too.
One step at a time, but an issue entry now so we don't forget about it.
http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=2858
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Carla F. Griggio < carla.griggio@gmail.com> wrote:
What we've been discussing with Guille is that sometimes the 'type checking' (or actually, the conversion) is done, and sometimes not.
For example:
5 + true
true does not understand 'adaptToNumber:andSend:', so no magic conversion is done, but strings understand that message so we get things like:
5 + 'foo' = 5
This should be consistent regardless the type of the parameter.
Cheers, Carla
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Guillermo Polito < guillermopolito@gmail.com> wrote:
Do we reeeeeally want to do
5 + '4'
5 + 'hello'
?