Smalltalk › Amber Smalltalk

Is Dictionary>>ifPresent: broken?

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

3 messages Options

Alex Schenkman

Is Dictionary>>ifPresent: broken?

Hi list:

Am I missing something or is this broken?

flag := false.

d := Dictionary new.

d at: #one put: 1.

d includesKey: #one. true

d at: #one ifPresent: [ :value | flag:= true. value ]. nil

flag. false

I've noticed the following:

at:ifAbsent: works fine, and it uses includesKey:

at:IfPresent uses basicAt:, and it does not work.

Thanks in advance!

Nicolas Petton

Re: Is Dictionary>>ifPresent: broken?

Thanks Alex!

Could you add an issue on the bug tracker?

https://github.com/NicolasPetton/amber/issues

Cheers,

Nico

2012/5/9 Alex Schenkman <[hidden email]>

Hi list:

Am I missing something or is this broken?

flag := false.
d := Dictionary new.

d at: #one put: 1.
d includesKey: #one. true
d at: #one ifPresent: [ :value | flag:= true. value ]. nil

flag. false

I've noticed the following:
at:ifAbsent: works fine, and it uses includesKey:

at:IfPresent uses basicAt:, and it does not work.

Thanks in advance!

Alex Schenkman

Re: Is Dictionary>>ifPresent: broken?

I've added the issue and sent a fix.

On Wednesday, May 9, 2012 4:29:37 PM UTC+2, nicolas petton wrote:

Thanks Alex!

Could you add an issue on the bug tracker?
https://github.com/NicolasPetton/amber/issues

Cheers,

Nico

2012/5/9 Alex Schenkman <>
Hi list:

Am I missing something or is this broken?

flag := false.
d := Dictionary new.

d at: #one put: 1.
d includesKey: #one. true
d at: #one ifPresent: [ :value | flag:= true. value ]. nil

flag. false

I've noticed the following:
at:ifAbsent: works fine, and it uses includesKey:

at:IfPresent uses basicAt:, and it does not work.

Thanks in advance!