(somehow, I didn’t get Martins mail) Yes, Martin, I agree with the misleading xDo: connotation. Thanks for your nice deconstruction of what I wanted :). Cyril suggests #bind:, which does not feel fully right. How about #boundTo: ? #(1 2 3) boundTo: [:a :b :c | …] Happy hacking, Christian Von: Esug-list <esug-list-bounces@lists.esug.org> Im Auftrag von Fabio Niephaus Gesendet: Samstag, 28. März 2020 17:04 An: esug-list@lists.esug.org Betreff: Re: [Esug-list] destructDo: On Sat, 28 Mar 2020 at 5:00 pm, Norm Green <norm.green@gemtalksystems.com <mailto: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] 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 <mailto:esug-list-bounces@lists.esug.org> <esug-list-bounces@lists.esug.org> Im Auftrag von Christophe Dony Gesendet: Samstag, 28. März 2020 15:17 An: esug-list@lists.esug.org <mailto: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 <mailto:mark.plas@mediagenix.tv> <https://www.google.com/maps/dir/?api=1&destination=50.872900,4.286429> Nieuwe Gentsesteenweg 21/1 <https://www.google.com/maps/dir/?api=1&destination=50.872900,4.286429> 1702 Groot-Bijgaarden - Belgium <https://nl.linkedin.com/company/mediagenix-ng> <https://twitter.com/mediagenix_tv> <https://www.facebook.com/MEDIAGENIX/> <http://www.mediagenix.tv> www.mediagenix.tv <http://www.mediagenix.tv/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Directions.pdf> 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 <mailto:esug-list-bounces@lists.esug.org> <esug-list-bounces@lists.esug.org> On Behalf Of Christian Haider Sent: zaterdag 28 maart 2020 13:43 To: vwnc@cs.uiuc.edu <mailto:vwnc@cs.uiuc.edu> ; esug-list@lists.esug.org <mailto:esug-list@lists.esug.org> ; amber-lang@googlegroups.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Esug-list@lists.esug.org> http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org