cool :D On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:
+ 1
On Mar 15, 2010, at 11:26 PM, Michael Roberts wrote:
I would try and reduce the number of branches first. you can use guard conditions to exit early.
This is not necessarily exact below, but you hopefully get the idea...
(self currentRow == sortedRows last and: [self currentCell isNil]) Â Â Â ifTrue: [^self navigationKey: event]
self currentRow ifNil: [^self].
self currentCell ifNil: Â Â Â [^self setCurrentRowToNext]
self setCurrentCellToNext.
self currentCell ifNil: [^self].
self currentCell performKeyFocus: event inCellBounds: Â Â Â (self pvtGetCellBounds: self currentCell)
A different approach entirely is to have an object(s) that represents the nil state for the row and cell. That way you are not checking constantly for it being nil, and perhaps you can dispatch some behaviour to it.
cheers, Mike
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 9:49 PM, nullPointer <epicfan@gmail.com> wrote:
Well, perhaps is a theme worked in another times but... is possible for Pharo have a basic Case or elseIf statement? I know is easy create you own structure control, but not is more useful have a "standard" for everybody? I´m tired of write code like that...
            (self currentRow == sortedRows last and: [ self currentCell isNil ]) ifTrue:             [                 self navigationKey: event             ]             ifFalse:             [                 (self currentRow notNil and: [ self currentCell isNil ]) ifTrue:                 [                     self setCurrentRowToNext.                 ]                 ifFalse:                 [                     (self currentRow notNil and: [ self currentCell notNil ]) ifTrue:                     [                         self setCurrentCellToNext.
                        self currentCell notNil ifTrue:                         [                             self currentCell performKeyFocus: event inCellBounds: (self pvtGetCellBounds: self currentCell).                         ].                     ].                 ].             ].
Write code with that format is pathetical :(
Is valid too have a "and" and "or" lazy? Exists a not lazy with #& and #| Â , but could exists an #&& and #|| Â . Is more easy...
   value1 == value2 and:[ <condition> ] and: [<condition>] ......
or
  value1 == value2 && <condition> && <condition> ......... ???
Well, perhaps is a stupid question but I miss a more complete way for write code. If in Smalltalk is possible do easy that and include it in "core" why not do it?
Is a reasonable desire :)
Regards
-- View this message in context: http://n4.nabble.com/Case-statement-and-lazy-comparison-in-Pharo-tp1594080p1... Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project