On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 21:11:40 +0200, Ron Teitelbaum wrote:
Brian,
Yes I agree it's a great suggestion, although a few changes:
Literal blocks to not parse into collections automatically.
Ron, please: a literal Array is a subclass of Collection and so the blocks
in
{ [nil]. [true]. [false] }
parse "into collections automatically". You didn't inspectIt for verifying
your (false) claim, didn't you. Also, have a look at the implementors of
#caseOf: and #caseOf:otherwise:, they are heavy users of literal blocks in
Collections ...
...
Each in this case is already a block.
Yes. And, into the other direction, even in good core methods one often
finds things like
^ dict at: aKey ifAbsent: [nil]
There seems to be a "natural" confusion between "object" value and block
"value". Not a big surprise since Java and other procedural-oriented
friends do not offer block values. So any demo of using blocks "as if"
they where any other object, as Brian has shown, is a sign for the ability
to master the subject 8-)
Only each is needed.
Absolutely.
So here is a version that works.
(OrderedCollection new
add: [10/0];
add: [2 raisedToInteger: 1/2];
add: [-5 raisedTo: 1.5]; yourself
) do: [:each | each on: Exception do: [:ex | Transcript show: ex; cr;
endEntry]].
endEntry is for Klaus!
Hhm, endEntry is too expensive within any and every loop. Just put
Transcript endEntry after the loop. I mentioned endEntry because
Transcript almost always does not display the last lines (they are
buffered) and people get confused and believe that either their code or
Squeak is wrong (but both is not the case).
It is a very good suggestion Brian!
Indeed, and Briant's use of literal blocks in a literal Array is perfect
(in the sense of: cannot be made better).
/Klaus
Ron Teitelbaum
_______________________________________________
Beginners mailing list
Beginners@lists.squeakfoundation.org
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners
