yes, 2.0 has that odd duplicate code (see my prev misplaced msg below ...)
A lot of time spent in expression-based languages leaves me
uncomfortable that ^self is used for this NOP condition which looks
like an unmessaged/unsignalled failure that should never arise.
I ask just me: why is this not Error material ? Should there not be a
flag to test against as to whether this is non-recoverable
non-completion of task ?
The opponents of nil checks spend too little time in happily
back-tracking Icon dialects ? ( yes ... there is now expression-based
ObjectIcon - and it is Unicode )
Of course the real question is how this code gets to stay there at all
even in 2.0 - or shoudl I be asking why a Trait was not the cure here
?
The really good news: it was not a copy-n-paste !
But seriously ... when this failure occurs, what flags that it is
harmless ? Compare messaging model of RTOS QNX where the cost of this
advice is low.
Or is this all safely covered by unit testing ? ( yes, that is my
twisted sense of almost-humour ... )
>
> In 1.4 ArrayedCollection we have
>
> this
>
> self class isPointers | self class isWords not ifTrue: [^self].
>
> in >>restoreEndianness
>
> but this in
>
> >>writeOn:
>
> (self class isPointers or: [ self class isWords not ]) ifTrue: [^ self ].
>
> It gets called once per task in both and should be a correct method,
> right ? The former does not even look correct at a glance.
>
> I have no time today to go check if this odd duplication remains in
> 2.0 as I must run
>
Locked
