finally, someone with a sense of opportunity :)
+100
On Apr 19, 2013, at 5:39 AM, Sean P. DeNigris s...@clipperadams.com wrote:
Frank Shearar-3 wrote
You could add Boolean as well, to avoid creating a name like 'aTrue'.
Ooh, good idea! Okay, there's obviously enough interest. I'll get on
I tweaked the code because in my most common case, I don't care that it's
e.g. aByteString, but only that it's aString:
(argument isKindOf: String) ifTrue: [ ^ 'aString' ].
(argument isKindOf: Collection) ifTrue: [ ^ 'aCollection' ].
(argument isKindOf: Integer) ifTrue: [
On 18 April 2013 21:15, Sean P. DeNigris s...@clipperadams.com wrote:
I tweaked the code because in my most common case, I don't care that it's
e.g. aByteString, but only that it's aString:
(argument isKindOf: String) ifTrue: [ ^ 'aString' ].
(argument isKindOf: Collection)
On 18 April 2013 21:17, Frank Shearar frank.shea...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 April 2013 21:15, Sean P. DeNigris s...@clipperadams.com wrote:
I tweaked the code because in my most common case, I don't care that it's
e.g. aByteString, but only that it's aString:
(argument isKindOf:
On 18 April 2013 22:15, Sean P. DeNigris s...@clipperadams.com wrote:
I tweaked the code because in my most common case, I don't care that it's
e.g. aByteString, but only that it's aString:
(argument isKindOf: String) ifTrue: [ ^ 'aString' ].
(argument isKindOf: Collection)
Frank Shearar-3 wrote
Belatedly, a comment: I usually turn numeric things into aNumber. You
particularly want to hint at the separate treatment of Integer and
friends from ScaledDecimal, Fraction, Float?
Particularly with Integers, I find that it matters more often than not e.g.
for indices,
a bit smarter system does not hurt.
Stef
On Apr 18, 2013, at 10:15 PM, Sean P. DeNigris s...@clipperadams.com wrote:
I tweaked the code because in my most common case, I don't care that it's
e.g. aByteString, but only that it's aString:
(argument isKindOf: String) ifTrue: [ ^
Am 18.04.2013 um 22:15 schrieb Sean P. DeNigris s...@clipperadams.com:
I tweaked the code because in my most common case, I don't care that it's
e.g. aByteString, but only that it's aString:
(argument isKindOf: String) ifTrue: [ ^ 'aString' ].
(argument isKindOf: Collection) ifTrue:
On 18 April 2013 23:02, Norbert Hartl norb...@hartl.name wrote:
Am 18.04.2013 um 22:15 schrieb Sean P. DeNigris s...@clipperadams.com:
I tweaked the code because in my most common case, I don't care that it's
e.g. aByteString, but only that it's aString:
(argument isKindOf: String)
Igor Stasenko wrote
Indeed... To the hell these case statements. It should be one-liner:
^ argument class canonicalArgumentName
+1 I was thinking the same thing... it started as a one-line hack for
ByteString and... well, you know ;)
-
Cheers,
Sean
--
View this message in context:
Am 18.04.2013 um 23:13 schrieb Igor Stasenko siguc...@gmail.com:
On 18 April 2013 23:02, Norbert Hartl norb...@hartl.name wrote:
Am 18.04.2013 um 22:15 schrieb Sean P. DeNigris s...@clipperadams.com:
I tweaked the code because in my most common case, I don't care that it's
e.g.
On 18 April 2013 22:19, Sean P. DeNigris s...@clipperadams.com wrote:
Igor Stasenko wrote
Indeed... To the hell these case statements. It should be one-liner:
^ argument class canonicalArgumentName
+1 I was thinking the same thing... it started as a one-line hack for
ByteString and... well,
Frank Shearar-3 wrote
You could add Boolean as well, to avoid creating a name like 'aTrue'.
Ooh, good idea! Okay, there's obviously enough interest. I'll get on it...
https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/10314/Debugger-create-better-argument-names
-
Cheers,
Sean
--
View this message in
13 matches
Mail list logo
