I'll revert this one then, having a better assert beats being marginally DRYer

> On Jul 10, 2013, at 22:33, Dave Lee <notifications@github.com> wrote:
> 
> In ReactiveCocoaFramework/ReactiveCocoa/RACSignal+Operations.m:
> 
> >  + (RACSignal *)if:(RACSignal *)boolSignal then:(RACSignal *)trueSignal else:(RACSignal *)falseSignal {
> >  	NSCParameterAssert(boolSignal != nil);
> >  	NSCParameterAssert(trueSignal != nil);
> >  	NSCParameterAssert(falseSignal != nil);
> >  
> > -	return [[[boolSignal
> > -		map:^(NSNumber *value) {
> > -			NSCAssert([value isKindOfClass:NSNumber.class], @"Expected %@ to send BOOLs, not %@", boolSignal, value);
> I agree. Since +if:then:else: has such a concise implementation, is there even much value in indirection via +switch:cases:?
> 
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.