On Fri, 30 Aug 2019 at 15:34, Julien <julien.delplan...@inria.fr> wrote:
> Hello, > > I opened that issue: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/issues/4442 > > And I think to fix it we need to actually discuss about what we want. > > #allButFirst: behaves differently depending on the actual type of > sequenceable collection when argument is greater than collection size. > > For instance: > > #(1 2) allButFirst: 3. "PrimitiveFailed signaled" > (LinkedList with: 1 with: 2) allButFirst: 3. "PrimitiveFailed signaled" > (OrderedCollection with: 1 with: 2) allButFirst: 3. "an > OrderedCollection() » > > The question is then, who is right? > Its worthwhile to at least survey other Smalltalks. For Visualworks... #(1 2) allButFirst: 3. "==> #()" (OrderedCollection with: 1 with: 2) allButFirst: 3. "==> OrderedCollection ()" (LinkedList with: Link new with: Link new ) allButFirst: 3. "raises an error Subscription out of bounds error" and also... (LinkedList with: Link new with: Link new ) allButFirst: 2. "raises an error Subscription out of bounds error" I feel that proceeding-without-iterating is nicer than showing-an-application-error. It provides the opportunity to not-check the number elements or wrapping error handling around it - i.e. less code if its not important. If its important not to exceed the number of elements, then that check can be explicitly coded. cheers -ben
