May 26, 2010
10:34 p.m.
Em 26/05/2010 07:07, Henrik Johansen < henrik.s.johansen@veloxit.no > escreveu:
On May 26, 2010, at 11:58 51AM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
hi richard
WTF?! If you have a real argument we are really open to discussion.
These are the only reasons? I think that they are sufficient +1 Because we could have and:or: or:and: and:and:or: and a couple of others in that case. No we could not :) Because of ambiguity: a and: (b or: c) is not the same as (a and: b) or: c Henry,
I disagree. Since to implement this in Smalltalk you'll need a specific method the ambiguity can be removed by specifying the API and using the appropriate implementation: Boolean>> and: x or: y ^(self and: x) or: y