After thinking about this message some more, it seemed to me that it was easier to come up with a good intention-revealing name if the block were the receiver and the array were the argument. It would be some kind of #valueWithArguments: selector. So I looked to see whether there was already such a thing, and sure enough, in Pharo there is #valueWithPossibleArgs:.

#valueWithPossibleArgs: will accept arrays (and I hope any SequenceableCollection) of any size -- trimming the end off if too large, padding with nils if too short.

On the principle of "if it's easy to come up with a good name, the design is probably pretty good" could this possibly be a better solution?

Regards,
-Martin

On 3/29/20 7:50 AM, Bruce Badger wrote:
We write code once, but read it many times.�� Given the relatively few times I would be using this (rather nice) thing, I'd be happy to type the full:

asArgumentsIn:

Christian, congratulations��on coming up with something to get us all thinking and talking.�� Good timing too :-/

Very best wishes,
�� �� Bruce

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 at 15:24, Tim Mackinnon <tim@testit.works> wrote:
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. M��rz 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. M��rz 2020 00:12
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 mailing list


_______________________________________________
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