On 26 May 2010 15:16, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:
In general (but it often does not work :)) having a lot of conditions in OOP means that you are missing class to dispatch on then.
Yup. Another argument to kill and:and:and: It reminds me isKindOf:orOf:
But then which is the equivalence to #and:and:and: when I have many conditions?
a and: [b] and: [c]
if a and c do not have side effect that may change the condition are equivalent to a and: [ b and: [c]]
so you have express what you want
Perhaps I will say a stupidity... but , not is valid the implementation of #&& and #|| messages instead of #and:... Â #or: .....?
& and | are executing all their arguments while     true & error -> error     true and: [error] -> true but it is more costly
( aCondition1 && aCondition2 && aCondition3 ) ifTrue: [ <something> ]
Regards -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/and-and-and-deprecated-on-1-1-why-tp2230786p2231486.ht... 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
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.