Yes, I had a brief brain lapse there; I actually use ifNil: on a
regular basis and really like the way it works; allows terse code.
--- Joshua Gargus <
[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 10:29:50 -0700 (PDT), "Chris Muller"
> <
[hidden email]> said:
> > It would probably be more consistent with ifTrue: and ifFalse: for
> > ifNil: to return nil.
> >
> > false ifTrue: [ 'non-nil' ] -> nil
> >
>
> Perhaps more consistent, but I think less useful. You couldn't write
> code like:
>
> self doSomethingWithNonNilObject: (anObject ifNil: [self
> generateNonNilObject])
>
>
> Josh
>
>
>
> > Chris
> >
> > --- Ron Teitelbaum <
[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Shouldn't ifEmpty: return self?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > #(1) ifEmpty: [nil] -> Returns nil
> > >
> > > #(1) ifNil: [nil]. -> Returns #(1)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Ron Teitelbaum
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Locked
