Em 26/05/2010 07:07, Henrik Johansen < [email protected] > escreveu: > On May 26, 2010, at 11:58 51AM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: > > > hi richard > > > >> WTF?! > > If you have a real argument we are really open to discussion. > > > >> These are the only reasons? I think that they are sufficient > +1 > > Because we could have and:or: or:and: and:and:or: and a couple of > others in that case. > No we could not :) Because of ambiguity: a and: (b or: c) is not > the same as (a and: b) or: c Henry,
I disagree. Since to implement this in Smalltalk you'll need a specific method the ambiguity can be removed by specifying the API and using the appropriate implementation: Boolean>> and: x or: y ^(self and: x) or: y _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
