Smalltalk › Squeak › Squeak - Dev

Literals | #NaN vs. (Float bindingOf: #NaN)

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

2 messages Options

marcel.taeumel

Literals | #NaN vs. (Float bindingOf: #NaN)

Hi, there.

Given such a method:

Float >> #foobar

^ #(NaN)

Should this be true:

(Float >> #foobar) hasLiteral: (Float bindingOf: #NaN)

I think not...

Best,

Marcel

Eliot Miranda-2

Re: Literals | #NaN vs. (Float bindingOf: #NaN)

Hi Marcel,

On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 1:26 AM Marcel Taeumel <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi, there.

Given such a method:

Float >> #foobar
^ #(NaN)

Should this be true:

(Float >> #foobar) hasLiteral: (Float bindingOf: #NaN)

I think not...

I agree. (Float >> #foobar) hasLiteral: #NaN should be true, but not the bindingOf: variant. However, in the UI it is helpful if the false positive shows up because that symbol *could* be used in a query. So IMO at some level the UI ought to be using two queries, one for the binding and one for the binding's key.

Best,
Marcel

_,,,^..^,,,_

best, Eliot