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 want�s to have a comparable object he has to use TComparable and define < and =.
With spaceship he has to define only <=>. I�m not sure what�s better. Just wanted to hear other peoples opinion

On 04 Nov 2013, at 13:35, St�phane 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.
>>
>> I�m 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 object�s 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
>
>