Yes this is what I did for the change sorter. I do not like this DSL like way of passing block over block over block

over blocks.

I love blocks but methods are named blocks and I prefer them.

Stef

biut that method can be written: 

aMenu addGroup: (MenuGroupModel new 

addItem: (MenuItemModel new 

name: 'Browse Full';

action: [ self browseSelectedObject ];

shortcut: $b command mac | $b alt win | $b alt unix);

addItem: (MenuItem new 

name: 'Browse Class';

action: [ self browseSelectedObjectClass ])).

and you do not have to declare variables for that (and is a lot better than using a block, IMO). 

On Nov 12, 2013, at 9:36 AM, Benjamin <Benjamin.VanRyseghem.Pharo@gmail.com> wrote:

One can just use an object too.

It�s just that otherwise, it pollutes a bit the method with tons of inst vars

(and then you forget to use them :P)

Ben

On 12 Nov 2013, at 13:05, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm@gmail.com> wrote:

On Nov 12, 2013, at 4:22 AM, Benjamin <benjamin.vanryseghem.pharo@gmail.com> wrote:

It is not necessary better, but it saves you from having hundreds of temp vars :)

Ben

On 12 Nov 2013, at 01:49, St�phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:

Example:
aMenu addGroup: [ :aGroup |
aGroup addItem: [ :anItem |
anItem name: 'Browse Full';
action: [ self browseSelectedObject ];
shortcut: $b command mac | $b alt win | $b alt unix  ].
aGroup addItem: [ :anItem |
anItem name: 'Browse Class';
action: [ self browseSelectedObjectClass ] ] ].

I do not see the value of passing block to add element to groups
why not the normal way i.e. passing an object. I do not get why executing
a block with an object is better?

he, I thought the same :)

Stef