[Pharo-project] Is there a good reason why ifEmpty: and ifNotEmpty: return nil rather than the receiver (as they do in Squeak) when the condition is false?
In squeak, if you send ifEmpty: or ifNotEmpty: to a collection and the condition being tested (emptiness or non-emptiness) is false, then the receiver (the collection) is returned rather than nil. This is more useful and more in line with how ifNil: and ifNotNil: work (which each otherwise return the receiver). See this bug report for more information: http://bugs.squeak.org/view.php?id=6364
thanks for reporting can you open a pharo bug entry else there is 80% of chance we will forget. Stef On Aug 9, 2010, at 10:40 PM, jaayer wrote:
In squeak, if you send ifEmpty: or ifNotEmpty: to a collection and the condition being tested (emptiness or non-emptiness) is false, then the receiver (the collection) is returned rather than nil. This is more useful and more in line with how ifNil: and ifNotNil: work (which each otherwise return the receiver).
See this bug report for more information:
http://bugs.squeak.org/view.php?id=6364
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
participants (2)
-
jaayer -
Stéphane Ducasse