There is #in: that does exactly that: class metaclass in: [ :metaclass | metaclass xxx. metaclass yyy ].
This is quite similar to lisp's let. You can do almost anything with blocks/closures. Although not relevant in most cases, there is a small performance price to pay - but again this is only relevant inside performance critical loops. > On 4 Mar 2019, at 14:06, Tim Mackinnon <tim@testit.works> wrote: > > I’ve noticed that as we’ve progressed there has been a move to more concise > and fluid code - e.g. I quite like the new String streaming stuff > > e.g. > > ^ String > streamContents: [ :stream | > stream nextPut: …. ] > > > So I was wondering why we don’t have a construct like Pascals with to avoid > Book1.title, Book1.author etc. > > (* book 1 specification *) > With Book1 do > begin > > title > := 'C Programming'; > > author > := 'Nuha Ali '; > > subject > := 'C Programming Tutorial'; > > book_id > := 6495407; > end; > > I often find it a bit tedious with code like the following which then needs > an instvar... > > self classes do: [ :class | > | metaclass | > metaclass := class metaclass. > metaclass xxxx. > mataclass yyyy. > ] > > > I’m wondering why we don’t have #with:do: > > class with: class metaclass do: [:metaclass | > metaclass xxx. > ] > > > But when such things aren’t there - there is usually a good reason and I’m > curious … this said, there are all kinds of other such tricks (which I rarely > use that I keep coming across). > > Tim >
