On 28.03.2020, at 17:04, Fabio Niephaus <lists@fniephaus.com> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2020 at 5:00 pm, Norm Green <norm.green@gemtalksystems.com> wrote: I agree with Martin. The default connotation of 'destruct' in English is to destroy. I would suggest either #destructuredDo: or #tuppleDo: to avoid confusion.
I agree. How about this:
#(1 2 3 4) feedInto: [:a :b: | a + b]
Or `#(1 2 3 4) partsIn: [:a :b | a + b]` Best regards -Tobias
Cheers, Fabio
Norm
On 3/28/2020 8:13 AM, Martin McClure wrote:
Hi Christian and all,
#destructDo: is probably not the best name. "Destruct" can be interpreted as either short for "destructured" (which is what you want) or more like "destroy" as in "self-destruct." I initially took "destruct" in the "destroy" sense and guessed that #destructDo: might remove each element from the collection as it iterated. You could lengthen it to #destructured: or #destructuredDo:, but if there's a good short name that would be better.
#tupleDo: feels better.
But both #tupleDo: and #destructDo: contain "do" which implies iteration. Unless I'm missing something, your #destructDo: does not iterate. I'd really expect a #tupleDo: to iterate -- I'd expect with
#(1 2 3 4) tupleDo: [:a :b: | a + b]
that the block would be evaluated twice, once with 1 and 2 and once with 3 and 4. This would be a nice pattern; you could also have a tupleCollect: a tupleDetect: and so on.
#mapTo: is quite similar to #map: in PetitParser, except IIRC PetitParser's #map: expects an exact match in argument count. But maybe #map: is a good name for consistency.
Hope this helps.
Regards, -Martin
On 3/28/20 7:24 AM, Christian Haider wrote:
Yes, that would be nice. Unfortunately a bit more involved than this 1-liner…
Von: Esug-list <esug-list-bounces@lists.esug.org> Im Auftrag von Christophe Dony Gesendet: Samstag, 28. März 2020 15:17 An: esug-list@lists.esug.org Betreff: Re: [Esug-list] destructDo:
Hi. I like tupleDo:
or matchDo:
and what about installing a full pattern matching, as in many languages e.g. Scheme : https://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/match.html
#(1 #(2 3 6 7) 4) matchDo: [:a (:b :@c) :d] | …] here c would be #(3 6 7)
may be it already exist? if not, would really be a +
Christophe
Le 28/03/2020 à 14:15, Mark Plas a écrit :
Hello Christian,
" I don’t really like the name,"
Maybe you could call it #tupleDo:?
#(1 2 3) tupleDo: [:a :b :c | …]
Mark
Mark Plas
Software Engineer
T +32 2 467 34 30
mark.plas@mediagenix.tv
Nieuwe Gentsesteenweg 21/1
1702 Groot-Bijgaarden - Belgium
www.mediagenix.tv
Directions to MEDIAGENIX
This e-mail and any files attached to it are confidential and intended only for the use of the individuals or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately.
From: Esug-list <esug-list-bounces@lists.esug.org> On Behalf Of Christian Haider Sent: zaterdag 28 maart 2020 13:43 To: vwnc@cs.uiuc.edu; esug-list@lists.esug.org; amber-lang@googlegroups.com Subject: [Esug-list] destructDo:
Hi,
I am using a nice little method #destructDo: for a while now and it feels good.
In VisualWorks:
SequenceableCollection>>destructDo: aBlock
"Evaluate aBlock with the receiver's elements as parameters.
aBlock takes its arguments from the receiver.
'ok'
#(1 2 3) destructDo: [:a :b :c | a + b + c]
#(1 2 3) destructDo: [:a :b | a + b]
#(1 2 3) destructDo: [:a | a]
#(1 2 3) destructDo: [42]
'not ok'
#(1 2 3) destructDo: [:a :b :c :d | a + b + c + d]
"
^aBlock cullWithArguments: self asArray
In Amber:
SequenceableCollection>>destructDo: aBlock
^aBlock valueWithPossibleArguments: self
In Pharo and other dialects, I don’t know, but should be as easy.
For example you can do
(('2020-03-28' tokensBasedOn: $-) collect: #asNumber) destructDo: [:year :month :day |
Date newDay: day monthNumber: month year: year]
I like that the block is not the receiver (like with #valueWithArguments or #cullWithArguments), but the last argument.
Now the questions:
• I am sure that others came up with this. Anybody knows? • What are you using for this pattern? • I don’t really like the name, but haven’t found anything better yet. Maybe #destructedDo: or just #destructed: or: #withPartsDo:… maybe something shorter? Ideas? • What are you thinking about this?
Happy hacking,
Christian
_______________________________________________ Esug-list mailing list Esug-list@lists.esug.org http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
_______________________________________________ Esug-list mailing list
Esug-list@lists.esug.org http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
_______________________________________________ Esug-list mailing list
Esug-list@lists.esug.org http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
_______________________________________________ Esug-list mailing list Esug-list@lists.esug.org http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org _______________________________________________ Esug-list mailing list Esug-list@lists.esug.org http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
-- Tobias Pape Software Architecture Group | http://www.hpi.uni-potsdam.de/swa/ Future SOC Lab | https://hpi.de/future-soc-lab Hasso-Plattner-Institut für Digital Engineering gGmbH | Universität Potsdam Prof.-Dr.-Helmert-Str. 2-3, D-14482 Potsdam, Germany Amtsgericht Potsdam, HRB 12184 | Geschäftsführung: Prof. Dr. Christoph Meinel