Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!news.hal.COM!halsoft.com!netcomsv!slcgate!servio!servio!bruce
From: bruce@slc.com (Bruce Schuchardt)
Subject: Re: Interesting Block Behavior
Message-ID: <bruce.781286050@servio>
Sender: news@slc.com (USENET News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: servio
Organization: Servio Corporation, Beaverton OR, USA
References: <Pine.3.89.9409281310.C15152-0100000@mercury.interpath.net> <Pine.A32.3.90.940928124656.23504B-100000@swim5.eng.sematech.org>
Date:  4 Oct 94 15:54:10 GMT
Lines: 22

"William D. Gooch" <goochb@swim5.eng.sematech.org> writes:

>On 28 Sep 1994, Smalltalker wrote:

>> This seems to have fixed the problem...

>I knew that.  I'm not looking for that sort of "fix."

>Surely you have something else to offer wrt the behavior of the original 
>code?

Doesn't look like a very interesting problem to me.  The block is
created in a method context and a double return from that context doesn't
make sense.  Returns from blocks are only useful if they're further down
the same stack, as in

     value := someDictionary at: #foo ifAbsent: [ ^self notFound ]

-- 
  Bruce Schuchardt
  bruce@slc.com
  (503)690-3520
