Just found this on twitter: http://www.cs.wm.edu/~denys/pubs/ICSE%2715-BadSmells-CRC.pdf Am 01.07.2015 23:35 schrieb stepharo <stepharo@free.fr>:
I know :D
Le 1/7/15 15:19, jtuchel@objektfabrik.de a écrit :
Stef,
you're shooting the wrong man! ;-) The crime was committed in your team ;-))))
See you in Brescia
Joachim
Am 30.06.15 um 19:19 schrieb stepharo:
Le 30/6/15 14:39, jtuchel@objektfabrik.de a écrit :
Ah, Okay, you are mentioning the one and only one case in which this could make sense.... ;-)
Something like
stream next ifNil: [^stream next].
so ugly. Please we should not teach how to do exception with blocks :)
So there may be cases where the two sends do not return the same result. But that is, of course, not what the OP suggested. Nevertheless, I was too fast in criticizing ;-)
I would consider code like that "less easy" to maintain, however.
Nice thinking Kata ;-)
Joachim
Am 30.06.15 um 14:22 schrieb Esteban Lorenzano:
ah yeah :)
I assumed
first "something aMsg" ~= second "something aMsgâ
In case is the same, the correct way is as you say:
^ something aMsg ifNil: [ anotherResult ]
(sorry, he :P)
On 30 Jun 2015, at 13:43, jtuchel@objektfabrik.de wrote:
Am 30.06.15 um 13:40 schrieb Peter Uhnák:
Make sense if there's code in between. not sure what you're saying. I mean, sending the message twice makes sense if you already know the outcome? Hmmm...
something aMsg ifNil:[ ^ something aMsg ]. "yay for guards!" "much more code" ^ aNotherResult
Peter
-- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Objektfabrik Joachim Tuchel mailto:jtuchel@objektfabrik.de Fliederweg 1 http://www.objektfabrik.de D-71640 Ludwigsburg http://joachimtuchel.wordpress.com Telefon: +49 7141 56 10 86 0Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Fax: +49 7141 56 10 86 1