[Glass] GemStone's #on:do: could be cull: instead of value: ?

[Dale Henrichs]

Mariano,

I am not an ANSI geek, so I can't comment on that aspect ...

It is a little unrealistic to expect GemStone to change as fast as Pharo:)
I have tried to keep pace with the compatibility layer (i.e., #cull:... was
added in the compatibility layer), but for the blocks that are created in
the exception handling layer it isn't that easy to add change for
compatibility since much of the exception handling logic is done in C code
and not Smalltalk ...

With that said, I will check into the feasibility of using #cull: for the
exception handling blocks...

Dale


On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 4:58 AM, Mariano Martinez Peck <
marianopeck at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi guys,
>
> Some weeks ago I noticed #on:do: behaved different than Pharo. Basically,
> in Pharo, the argument of the do: is not mandatory while in GemStone it is.
> So Pharo has a kind of #value: behavior while GemStone has #cull:.
>
> Does ANSI Smalltalk say something about it? Do you have plans of making it
> like Pharo behavior?
> Maybe there are strong reason for let it as is?
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> --
> Mariano
> http://marianopeck.wordpress.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Glass mailing list
> Glass at lists.gemtalksystems.com
> http://lists.gemtalksystems.com/mailman/listinfo/glass
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.gemtalksystems.com/mailman/private/glass/attachments/20140120/1e8ad537/attachment.html>