we add^H^H^H had 2013/11/4 Nicolas Cellier <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice@gmail.com>
Beware of cases where you don't have total order. For example, in recent Squeak/Pharo we add to redefine the whole set of operators on numbers, not only < and =, just because NaN is not ordered...
2013/11/4 kilon alios <kilon.alios@gmail.com>
It looks to me that this would be the source of less readable code, I prefer the choosing message approach by Kent Beck (Smalltalk Best Practice Patterns) where intent is clearly stated. Unless there is an advantage I am missing here. This is an example that less verbose code does not mean simpler code. Of course this will largely depend on the specifics of the case used.
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk@me.com>wrote:
Now she someone wantâs to have a comparable object he has to use TComparable and define < and =. With spaceship he has to define only <=>. Iâm not sure whatâs better. Just wanted to hear other peoples opinion
On 04 Nov 2013, at 13:35, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:
do you have a real use case?
Stef
On Nov 4, 2013, at 1:32 PM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk@me.com> wrote:
Hi everyone.
Iâm wandering if there was any sort of a discussion about a spaceship method used in Ruby.
The concept is that you should implement a method <=> that returns something negative if the receiver is smaller then a parameter, positive when the receiver is greater then a parameter, and 0 if they are equal.
This way if you are implementing comparable objectâs the only method you have to redefine is spaceship (<=>).
Yes, I know that i Pharo you have to only redefine < and =. But maybe it would be interesting to use spaceship :)
What do you think? Cheers! Uko