On 5 March 2010 09:26, Peter Hugosson-Miller <oldmanlink@gmail.com> wrote:
Hehe, it wouldn't surprise me if some of those examples would compile to the same byte codes. Have you tried decompiling to see what you get?
Not that i'm really interested in using it in such fashion :) It just an observation.
-- Cheers, Peter.
On 5 mar 2010, at 08.22, Igor Stasenko <siguctua@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello, I just realized, that one can completely avoid using ifTrue/ifFalse branches, but use #or: and #and: instead.
a > b ifTrue: [ ... ] could be written as: a > b and: [ ... ]
a > b ifFalse: [ ... ] could be written as: a > b or: [ ... ]
and a > b ifTrue: [ self foo ] ifFalse: [ self bar ] could be written as:
a > b and: [ self foo]; or:[ self bar ]
:)
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.