On 26 May 2010 15:16, Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected]> 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:... #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.html >> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pharo-project mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig. _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
