Agree with intention revealing - #argumentsIn: would contract it a bit more (not sure the as strictly needed as we aren’t returning a result). And #argsIn: might be a bit too concise. Like this proposal though. Tim On Sun, 29 Mar 2020, at 2:28 PM, Helge Nowak via Esug-list wrote:
intention revealing trumps brevity
Am Sonntag, 29. März 2020, 00:58:49 MEZ hat Christian Haider <christian.haider@smalltalked-visuals.com> Folgendes geschrieben:
Not bad! Captures the semantics nicely.
Just a bit long
*Von:* Esug-list <esug-list-bounces@lists.esug.org> *Im Auftrag von *Bert Freudenberg *Gesendet:* Sonntag, 29. März 2020 00:12 *An:* esug-list@lists.esug.org *Betreff:* Re: [Esug-list] destructDo:
On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 11:27 AM Pape, Tobias <Tobias.Pape@hpi.de> wrote:
What about
^stringsOfLine asComponentsIn: [:ignore :string2 :string3 :string4 | self produktbereich: string2 profitcenter: string3 bezeichnung: string4]
?
Best regards -Tobias
Agreed, "...In:" is better than "...Do" because the latter implies iteration in Smalltalk. (never mind ifNotNilDo: which broke the convention)
And since block arguments are called "arguments" how about
aCollection asArgumentsIn: [:arg1 :arg2 :arg3 | ... ]
- Bert -
PS: Happy Covid Bike Shedding ;)
_______________________________________________ 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