Very interesting stef, thanks a lot... but now, I'm not sure of what I did with OB-Tools (I just replace ifNotNil: [ :blah | ... ] with ifNotNilDo: [ :blah | ... ]... I understand why the first version of ifNotNil: is done like that in pharo... but what I do with compatibility? will pharo still support ifNotNilDo:? And, I also agree with lukas. blahDo: is ugly, if you have an elegant solution... but, what I have to do with OB-Tools? I replace methods (like before) or better I create a package OB-Tools-Squeak with extensions for Squeak? I know... this is hardly a "pharo issue", but maybe can provide pharo developers of clues of what to do if they are trying to keep compatibiity (I know, that's not a pharo goal -compatibility-, but sometimes may be necessary). Cheers, Esteban On 2009-01-27 13:09:30 -0200, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> said:
I found this blog entry really nice on this specific question.
http://blog.3plus4.org/2007/04/
On Jan 27, 2009, at 1:44 PM, Esteban Lorenzano wrote:
Hi, I'm trying to understand why pharo modifies squeak behavior of ifNotNil: and introduces the optional parameter... is there a reason?
Cheers, Esteban
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project