>
>
> Le 30/6/15 14:39, [hidden email] a écrit :
>> Ah, Okay, you are mentioning the one and only one case in which this
>> could make sense.... ;-)
>>
>> Something like
>>
>> stream next ifNil: [^stream next].
>
> so ugly.
> Please we should not teach how to do exception with blocks :)
>>
>> So there may be cases where the two sends do not return the same
>> result. But that is, of course, not what the OP suggested.
>> Nevertheless, I was too fast in criticizing ;-)
>>
>> I would consider code like that "less easy" to maintain, however.
>>
>> Nice thinking Kata ;-)
>>
>> Joachim
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 30.06.15 um 14:22 schrieb Esteban Lorenzano:
>>> ah yeah :)
>>>
>>> I assumed
>>>
>>> first "something aMsg" ~= second "something aMsg”
>>>
>>> In case is the same, the correct way is as you say:
>>>
>>> ^ something aMsg ifNil: [ anotherResult ]
>>>
>>> (sorry, he :P)
>>>
>>>> On 30 Jun 2015, at 13:43, [hidden email] wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Am 30.06.15 um 13:40 schrieb Peter Uhnák:
>>>>> Make sense if there's code in between.
>>>> not sure what you're saying. I mean, sending the message twice
>>>> makes sense if you already know the outcome? Hmmm...
>>>>
>>>>> something aMsg ifNil:[ ^ something aMsg ]. "yay for guards!"
>>>>> "much more code"
>>>>> ^ aNotherResult
>>>>>
>>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Objektfabrik Joachim Tuchel mailto:[hidden email]
>>>> Fliederweg 1 http://www.objektfabrik.de
>>>> D-71640 Ludwigsburg http://joachimtuchel.wordpress.com
>>>> Telefon: +49 7141 56 10 86 0         Fax: +49 7141 56 10 86 1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>