September 2019 - Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-dev] I have a dream... or why I think that compatibility is an illusion and bring us to the past

by ducasse

> On 11 Sep 2019, at 02:13, Gabriel Cotelli <g.cotelli(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Looks like Christmas season opened early this year :) > > Jokes aside, I'm in favor of changing some of the characters we use for binary selectors to allow it to be used in keyword/unary messages. > > I'll include % in that list. For me its more useful as a way to create percentages ( 5 % ) than to be used as a binary message for keeping an ugly name from C-like languages. Can you explain? Because I thought that % was used and right now it is a binary selector so I would not change it. > Â· is middle dot and it's used in some math operations AFAIR > Ã is used in math also (it's used as the multiplication sign for scalars, cross product for vectors and cartesian product for sets) Yes I know. We can let them rot in peace. > One thing that would be really cool is that we can use the full power of Unicode in methods/class names. Projects like polymath and DSLs can clearly take advantage of that. Some examples I've just invented, but can be supported: > > â from: 1 to: 5 do: [:i | i + i squared ] > 1 â¥ 3 > â anyIn: #( 1 2 4) such: [:x | x isPrime ] > â includes: 1 :) Why not :) For me the first step is to be able to rescue ? and ! from decay and give us a MUCH better way to convey meaning. Just for the fun look at the method of the BIContext to see what I mean. Iâm refactoring the API of the new formatter and it is so frustrating to not being able to express interrogation nicely. > > > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 5:15 PM ducasse <stepharo(a)netcourrier.com <mailto:stepharo@netcourrier.com>> wrote: > I would love to retract ? and ! from the list of binary selectors. > Iâm super super frustrated that predicates cannot be easily identifiable. > > for example is > lineUpBlockBrackets an action or a testing method. > > I think that we are trapped in mistakes from the past. > In racket and scheme and I guess ruby too we can use ? in the method and > this change the game. > > self lineUpBlockBrackets? > > We have plenty of binary selector parts that are not used and think that > it is frustrating. > > Let us check: > > Character specialCharacters > > '+-/\*~<>=@,%|&?!Â·Ã·Â±Ã' > > + > - > / > \ > ~ > < > > > = > @ > , > & > | > % > > those are ok > > I have no idea what is Â· nor how to type it. > Ã· looks from the past. > Â± so funny > Ã no idea what it is andâ¦. > > Then we have two that could really improve our language > ? and ! > > Do not tell me that there is a value in these selectors? > > > (#(#+ #- #/ #\ #* #~ #< #> #= #@ #, #% #| #& #? #!) combinations > select: [ :each | each size = 3 and: [ each includesAnyOf: #(#? #!) ] ]) collect: [ :each | each first, each second, each third ] > > #(#'+-?' #'+-!' #'+/?' #'+/!' #'+\?' #'+\!' #'+*?' #'+*!' #'+~?' #'+~!' #'+<?' #'+<!' #'+>?' #'+>!' #'+=?' #'+=!' #'+@?' #'+@!' #'+,?' #'+,!' #'+%?' #'+%!' #'+|?' #'+|!' #'+&?' #'+&!' #'+?!' #'-/?' #'-/!' #'-\?' #'-\!' #'-*?' #'-*!' #'-~?' #'-~!' #'-<?' #'-<!' #'->?' #'->!' #'-=?' #'-=!' #'-@?' #'-@!' #'-,?' #'-,!' #'-%?' #'-%!' #'-|?' #'-|!' #'-&?' #'-&!' #'-?!' #'/\?' #'/\!' #'/*?' #'/*!' #'/~?' #'/~!' #'/<?' #'/<!' #'/>?' #'/>!' #'/=?' #'/=!' #'/@?' #'/@!' #'/,?' #'/,!' #'/%?' #'/%!' #'/|?' #'/|!' #'/&?' #'/&!' #'/?!' #'\*?' #'\*!' #'\~?' #'\~!' #'\<?' #'\<!' #'\>?' #'\>!' #'\=?' #'\=!' #'\@?' #'\@!' #'\,?' #'\,!' #'\%?' #'\%!' #'\|?' #'\|!' #'\&?' #'\&!' #'\?!' #'*~?' #'*~!' #'*<?' #'*<!' #'*>?' #'*>!' #'*=?' #'*=!' #'*@?' #'*@!' #'*,?' #'*,!' #'*%?' #'*%!' #'*|?' #'*|!' #'*&?' #'*&!' #'*?!' #'~<?' #'~<!' #'~>?' #'~>!' #'~=?' #'~=!' #'~@?' #'~@!' #'~,?' #'~,!' #'~%?' #'~%!' #'~|?' #'~|!' #'~&?' #'~&!' #'~?!' #'<>?' #'<>!' #'<=?' #'<=!' #'<@?' #'<@!' #'<,?' #'<,!' #'<%?' #'<%!' #'<|?' #'<|!' #'<&?' #'<&!' #'<?!' #'>=?' #'>=!' #'>@?' #'>@!' #'>,?' #'>,!' #'>%?' #'>%!' #'>|?' #'>|!' #'>&?' #'>&!' #'>?!' #'=@?' #'=@!' #'=,?' #'=,!' #'=%?' #'=%!' #'=|?' #'=|!' #'=&?' #'=&!' #'=?!' #'@,?' #'@,!' #'@%?' #'@%!' #'@|?' #'@|!' #'@&?' #'@&!' #'@?!' #',%?' #',%!' #',|?' #',|!' #',&?' #',&!' #',?!' #'%|?' #'%|!' #'%&?' #'%&!' #'%?!' #'|&?' #'|&!' #'|?!' #'&?!â) > > may be this one #&?! is useful for WTF! > > And because of that we sacrifice having nice method names! > I really think that we should change that. > > S. > > >

Sept. 11, 2019

Re: [Pharo-dev] I have a dream... or why I think that compatibility is an illusion and bring us to the past

by Bernardo Ezequiel Contreras

sorry, how do you type unicode characters? On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 1:07 AM phil(a)highoctane.be <phil(a)highoctane.be> wrote: > I feel an APL forcefield growing. > > Phil > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 02:14 Gabriel Cotelli <g.cotelli(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Looks like Christmas season opened early this year :) >> >> Jokes aside, I'm in favor of changing some of the characters we use for >> binary selectors to allow it to be used in keyword/unary messages. >> >> I'll include % in that list. For me its more useful as a way to create >> percentages ( 5 % ) than to be used as a binary message for keeping an ugly >> name from C-like languages. >> >> - Â· is middle dot and it's used in some math operations AFAIR >> - Ã is used in math also (it's used as the multiplication sign for >> scalars, cross product for vectors and cartesian product for sets) >> >> One thing that would be really cool is that we can use the full power of >> Unicode in methods/class names. Projects like polymath and DSLs can clearly >> take advantage of that. Some examples I've just invented, but can be >> supported: >> >> >> - >> >> â from: 1 to: 5 do: [:i | i + i squared ] >> - >> >> 1 â¥ 3 >> - >> >> â anyIn: #( 1 2 4) such: [:x | x isPrime ] >> - >> >> â includes: 1 >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 5:15 PM ducasse <stepharo(a)netcourrier.com> wrote: >> >>> I would love to retract ? and ! from the list of binary selectors. >>> Iâm super super frustrated that predicates cannot be easily >>> identifiable. >>> >>> for example is >>> lineUpBlockBrackets an action or a testing method. >>> >>> I think that we are trapped in mistakes from the past. >>> In racket and scheme and I guess ruby too we can use ? in the method and >>> this change the game. >>> >>> self lineUpBlockBrackets? >>> >>> We have plenty of binary selector parts that are not used and think that >>> it is frustrating. >>> >>> Let us check: >>> >>> Character specialCharacters >>> >>> '+-/\*~<>=@,%|&?!Â·Ã·Â±Ã' >>> >>> + >>> - >>> / >>> \ >>> ~ >>> < >>> > >>> = >>> @ >>> , >>> & >>> | >>> % >>> >>> those are ok >>> >>> I have no idea what is Â· nor how to type it. >>> Ã· looks from the past. >>> Â± so funny >>> Ã no idea what it is andâ¦. >>> >>> Then we have two that could really improve our language >>> ? and ! >>> >>> Do not tell me that there is a value in these selectors? >>> >>> >>> (#(#+ #- #/ #\ #* #~ #< #> #= #@ #, #% #| #& #? #!) combinations >>> select: [ :each | each size = 3 and: [ each includesAnyOf: #(#? >>> #!) ] ]) collect: [ :each | each first, each second, each third ] >>> >>> #(#'+-?' #'+-!' #'+/?' #'+/!' #'+\?' #'+\!' #'+*?' #'+*!' #'+~?' #'+~!' >>> #'+<?' #'+<!' #'+>?' #'+>!' #'+=?' #'+=!' #'+@?' #'+@!' #'+,?' #'+,!' >>> #'+%?' #'+%!' #'+|?' #'+|!' #'+&?' #'+&!' #'+?!' #'-/?' #'-/!' #'-\?' >>> #'-\!' #'-*?' #'-*!' #'-~?' #'-~!' #'-<?' #'-<!' #'->?' #'->!' #'-=?' >>> #'-=!' #'-@?' #'-@!' #'-,?' #'-,!' #'-%?' #'-%!' #'-|?' #'-|!' #'-&?' >>> #'-&!' #'-?!' #'/\?' #'/\!' #'/*?' #'/*!' #'/~?' #'/~!' #'/<?' #'/<!' >>> #'/>?' #'/>!' #'/=?' #'/=!' #'/@?' #'/@!' #'/,?' #'/,!' #'/%?' #'/%!' >>> #'/|?' #'/|!' #'/&?' #'/&!' #'/?!' #'\*?' #'\*!' #'\~?' #'\~!' #'\<?' >>> #'\<!' #'\>?' #'\>!' #'\=?' #'\=!' #'\@?' #'\@!' #'\,?' #'\,!' #'\%?' >>> #'\%!' #'\|?' #'\|!' #'\&?' #'\&!' #'\?!' #'*~?' #'*~!' #'*<?' #'*<!' >>> #'*>?' #'*>!' #'*=?' #'*=!' #'*@?' #'*@!' #'*,?' #'*,!' #'*%?' #'*%!' >>> #'*|?' #'*|!' #'*&?' #'*&!' #'*?!' #'~<?' #'~<!' #'~>?' #'~>!' #'~=?' >>> #'~=!' #'~@?' #'~@!' #'~,?' #'~,!' #'~%?' #'~%!' #'~|?' #'~|!' #'~&?' >>> #'~&!' #'~?!' #'<>?' #'<>!' #'<=?' #'<=!' #'<@?' #'<@!' #'<,?' #'<,!' >>> #'<%?' #'<%!' #'<|?' #'<|!' #'<&?' #'<&!' #'<?!' #'>=?' #'>=!' #'>@?' >>> #'>@!' #'>,?' #'>,!' #'>%?' #'>%!' #'>|?' #'>|!' #'>&?' #'>&!' #'>?!' >>> #'=@?' #'=@!' #'=,?' #'=,!' #'=%?' #'=%!' #'=|?' #'=|!' #'=&?' #'=&!' >>> #'=?!' #'@,?' #'@,!' #'@%?' #'@%!' #'@|?' #'@|!' #'@&?' #'@&!' #'@?!' >>> #',%?' #',%!' #',|?' #',|!' #',&?' #',&!' #',?!' #'%|?' #'%|!' #'%&?' >>> #'%&!' #'%?!' #'|&?' #'|&!' #'|?!' #'&?!â) >>> >>> may be this one #&?! is useful for WTF! >>> >>> And because of that we sacrifice having nice method names! >>> I really think that we should change that. >>> >>> S. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- Bernardo E.C. Sent from a cheap desktop computer in South America.

Sept. 11, 2019

Re: [Pharo-dev] I have a dream... or why I think that compatibility is an illusion and bring us to the past

by phil＠highoctane.be

I feel an APL forcefield growing. Phil On Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 02:14 Gabriel Cotelli <g.cotelli(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Looks like Christmas season opened early this year :) > > Jokes aside, I'm in favor of changing some of the characters we use for > binary selectors to allow it to be used in keyword/unary messages. > > I'll include % in that list. For me its more useful as a way to create > percentages ( 5 % ) than to be used as a binary message for keeping an ugly > name from C-like languages. > > - Â· is middle dot and it's used in some math operations AFAIR > - Ã is used in math also (it's used as the multiplication sign for > scalars, cross product for vectors and cartesian product for sets) > > One thing that would be really cool is that we can use the full power of > Unicode in methods/class names. Projects like polymath and DSLs can clearly > take advantage of that. Some examples I've just invented, but can be > supported: > > > - > > â from: 1 to: 5 do: [:i | i + i squared ] > - > > 1 â¥ 3 > - > > â anyIn: #( 1 2 4) such: [:x | x isPrime ] > - > > â includes: 1 > > > > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 5:15 PM ducasse <stepharo(a)netcourrier.com> wrote: > >> I would love to retract ? and ! from the list of binary selectors. >> Iâm super super frustrated that predicates cannot be easily identifiable. >> >> for example is >> lineUpBlockBrackets an action or a testing method. >> >> I think that we are trapped in mistakes from the past. >> In racket and scheme and I guess ruby too we can use ? in the method and >> this change the game. >> >> self lineUpBlockBrackets? >> >> We have plenty of binary selector parts that are not used and think that >> it is frustrating. >> >> Let us check: >> >> Character specialCharacters >> >> '+-/\*~<>=@,%|&?!Â·Ã·Â±Ã' >> >> + >> - >> / >> \ >> ~ >> < >> > >> = >> @ >> , >> & >> | >> % >> >> those are ok >> >> I have no idea what is Â· nor how to type it. >> Ã· looks from the past. >> Â± so funny >> Ã no idea what it is andâ¦. >> >> Then we have two that could really improve our language >> ? and ! >> >> Do not tell me that there is a value in these selectors? >> >> >> (#(#+ #- #/ #\ #* #~ #< #> #= #@ #, #% #| #& #? #!) combinations >> select: [ :each | each size = 3 and: [ each includesAnyOf: #(#? >> #!) ] ]) collect: [ :each | each first, each second, each third ] >> >> #(#'+-?' #'+-!' #'+/?' #'+/!' #'+\?' #'+\!' #'+*?' #'+*!' #'+~?' #'+~!' >> #'+<?' #'+<!' #'+>?' #'+>!' #'+=?' #'+=!' #'+@?' #'+@!' #'+,?' #'+,!' >> #'+%?' #'+%!' #'+|?' #'+|!' #'+&?' #'+&!' #'+?!' #'-/?' #'-/!' #'-\?' >> #'-\!' #'-*?' #'-*!' #'-~?' #'-~!' #'-<?' #'-<!' #'->?' #'->!' #'-=?' >> #'-=!' #'-@?' #'-@!' #'-,?' #'-,!' #'-%?' #'-%!' #'-|?' #'-|!' #'-&?' >> #'-&!' #'-?!' #'/\?' #'/\!' #'/*?' #'/*!' #'/~?' #'/~!' #'/<?' #'/<!' >> #'/>?' #'/>!' #'/=?' #'/=!' #'/@?' #'/@!' #'/,?' #'/,!' #'/%?' #'/%!' >> #'/|?' #'/|!' #'/&?' #'/&!' #'/?!' #'\*?' #'\*!' #'\~?' #'\~!' #'\<?' >> #'\<!' #'\>?' #'\>!' #'\=?' #'\=!' #'\@?' #'\@!' #'\,?' #'\,!' #'\%?' >> #'\%!' #'\|?' #'\|!' #'\&?' #'\&!' #'\?!' #'*~?' #'*~!' #'*<?' #'*<!' >> #'*>?' #'*>!' #'*=?' #'*=!' #'*@?' #'*@!' #'*,?' #'*,!' #'*%?' #'*%!' >> #'*|?' #'*|!' #'*&?' #'*&!' #'*?!' #'~<?' #'~<!' #'~>?' #'~>!' #'~=?' >> #'~=!' #'~@?' #'~@!' #'~,?' #'~,!' #'~%?' #'~%!' #'~|?' #'~|!' #'~&?' >> #'~&!' #'~?!' #'<>?' #'<>!' #'<=?' #'<=!' #'<@?' #'<@!' #'<,?' #'<,!' >> #'<%?' #'<%!' #'<|?' #'<|!' #'<&?' #'<&!' #'<?!' #'>=?' #'>=!' #'>@?' >> #'>@!' #'>,?' #'>,!' #'>%?' #'>%!' #'>|?' #'>|!' #'>&?' #'>&!' #'>?!' >> #'=@?' #'=@!' #'=,?' #'=,!' #'=%?' #'=%!' #'=|?' #'=|!' #'=&?' #'=&!' >> #'=?!' #'@,?' #'@,!' #'@%?' #'@%!' #'@|?' #'@|!' #'@&?' #'@&!' #'@?!' >> #',%?' #',%!' #',|?' #',|!' #',&?' #',&!' #',?!' #'%|?' #'%|!' #'%&?' >> #'%&!' #'%?!' #'|&?' #'|&!' #'|?!' #'&?!â) >> >> may be this one #&?! is useful for WTF! >> >> And because of that we sacrifice having nice method names! >> I really think that we should change that. >> >> S. >> >> >> >>

Sept. 11, 2019

Re: [Pharo-dev] Allow selected special characters as part of unary and keyword selectors?

by James Foster

Would use of ? and ! in unary/keyword selectors be convention or somehow required? If simply convention, then we should start with renaming testing methods to be named is* or has*. flag1 := anInteger even. ânot good" flag2 := anInteger isEven. âbetter" flag3 := anInteger even?. âhow much better?â flag4 := #(1 2 3) includes?: 2. âhow much better?" Iâm not convinced that having another way to indicate a testing method will help if people still donât name methods well. Also, can you give an example of where ! would clarify the meaning? Are you thinking of the following: myPoint x!: 3. myArray at: 1 put!: nil. Those donât seem to be much improved! Iâm not arguing for âcompatibility" or "staying in the past." Iâm just trying to understand the benefit. Thanks, James > On Sep 10, 2019, at 1:14 PM, ducasse <stepharo(a)netcourrier.com> wrote: > > I would love to retract ? and ! from the list of binary selectors. > Iâm super super frustrated that predicates cannot be easily identifiable. > > for example is > lineUpBlockBrackets an action or a testing method. > > I think that we are trapped in mistakes from the past. > In racket and scheme and I guess ruby too we can use ? in the method and > this change the game. > > self lineUpBlockBrackets? > > We have plenty of binary selector parts that are not used and think that > it is frustrating. > > Let us check: > > Character specialCharacters > > '+-/\*~<>=@,%|&?!Â·Ã·Â±Ã' > > + > - > / > \ > ~ > < >> > = > @ > , > & > | > % > > those are ok > > I have no idea what is Â· nor how to type it. > Ã· looks from the past. > Â± so funny > Ã no idea what it is andâ¦. > > Then we have two that could really improve our language > ? and ! > > Do not tell me that there is a value in these selectors? > > > (#(#+ #- #/ #\ #* #~ #< #> #= #@ #, #% #| #& #? #!) combinations > select: [ :each | each size = 3 and: [ each includesAnyOf: #(#? #!) ] ]) collect: [ :each | each first, each second, each third ] > > #(#'+-?' #'+-!' #'+/?' #'+/!' #'+\?' #'+\!' #'+*?' #'+*!' #'+~?' #'+~!' #'+<?' #'+<!' #'+>?' #'+>!' #'+=?' #'+=!' #'+@?' #'+@!' #'+,?' #'+,!' #'+%?' #'+%!' #'+|?' #'+|!' #'+&?' #'+&!' #'+?!' #'-/?' #'-/!' #'-\?' #'-\!' #'-*?' #'-*!' #'-~?' #'-~!' #'-<?' #'-<!' #'->?' #'->!' #'-=?' #'-=!' #'-@?' #'-@!' #'-,?' #'-,!' #'-%?' #'-%!' #'-|?' #'-|!' #'-&?' #'-&!' #'-?!' #'/\?' #'/\!' #'/*?' #'/*!' #'/~?' #'/~!' #'/<?' #'/<!' #'/>?' #'/>!' #'/=?' #'/=!' #'/@?' #'/@!' #'/,?' #'/,!' #'/%?' #'/%!' #'/|?' #'/|!' #'/&?' #'/&!' #'/?!' #'\*?' #'\*!' #'\~?' #'\~!' #'\<?' #'\<!' #'\>?' #'\>!' #'\=?' #'\=!' #'\@?' #'\@!' #'\,?' #'\,!' #'\%?' #'\%!' #'\|?' #'\|!' #'\&?' #'\&!' #'\?!' #'*~?' #'*~!' #'*<?' #'*<!' #'*>?' #'*>!' #'*=?' #'*=!' #'*@?' #'*@!' #'*,?' #'*,!' #'*%?' #'*%!' #'*|?' #'*|!' #'*&?' #'*&!' #'*?!' #'~<?' #'~<!' #'~>?' #'~>!' #'~=?' #'~=!' #'~@?' #'~@!' #'~,?' #'~,!' #'~%?' #'~%!' #'~|?' #'~|!' #'~&?' #'~&!' #'~?!' #'<>?' #'<>!' #'<=?' #'<=!' #'<@?' #'<@!' #'<,?' #'<,!' #'<%?' #'<%!' #'<|?' #'<|!' #'<&?' #'<&!' #'<?!' #'>=?' #'>=!' #'>@?' #'>@!' #'>,?' #'>,!' #'>%?' #'>%!' #'>|?' #'>|!' #'>&?' #'>&!' #'>?!' #'=@?' #'=@!' #'=,?' #'=,!' #'=%?' #'=%!' #'=|?' #'=|!' #'=&?' #'=&!' #'=?!' #'@,?' #'@,!' #'@%?' #'@%!' #'@|?' #'@|!' #'@&?' #'@&!' #'@?!' #',%?' #',%!' #',|?' #',|!' #',&?' #',&!' #',?!' #'%|?' #'%|!' #'%&?' #'%&!' #'%?!' #'|&?' #'|&!' #'|?!' #'&?!â) > > may be this one #&?! is useful for WTF! > > And because of that we sacrifice having nice method names! > I really think that we should change that. > > S. > > > >

Sept. 11, 2019

Re: [Pharo-dev] I have a dream... or why I think that compatibility is an illusion and bring us to the past

by Gabriel Cotelli

Looks like Christmas season opened early this year :) Jokes aside, I'm in favor of changing some of the characters we use for binary selectors to allow it to be used in keyword/unary messages. I'll include % in that list. For me its more useful as a way to create percentages ( 5 % ) than to be used as a binary message for keeping an ugly name from C-like languages. - Â· is middle dot and it's used in some math operations AFAIR - Ã is used in math also (it's used as the multiplication sign for scalars, cross product for vectors and cartesian product for sets) One thing that would be really cool is that we can use the full power of Unicode in methods/class names. Projects like polymath and DSLs can clearly take advantage of that. Some examples I've just invented, but can be supported: - â from: 1 to: 5 do: [:i | i + i squared ] - 1 â¥ 3 - â anyIn: #( 1 2 4) such: [:x | x isPrime ] - â includes: 1 On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 5:15 PM ducasse <stepharo(a)netcourrier.com> wrote: > I would love to retract ? and ! from the list of binary selectors. > Iâm super super frustrated that predicates cannot be easily identifiable. > > for example is > lineUpBlockBrackets an action or a testing method. > > I think that we are trapped in mistakes from the past. > In racket and scheme and I guess ruby too we can use ? in the method and > this change the game. > > self lineUpBlockBrackets? > > We have plenty of binary selector parts that are not used and think that > it is frustrating. > > Let us check: > > Character specialCharacters > > '+-/\*~<>=@,%|&?!Â·Ã·Â±Ã' > > + > - > / > \ > ~ > < > > > = > @ > , > & > | > % > > those are ok > > I have no idea what is Â· nor how to type it. > Ã· looks from the past. > Â± so funny > Ã no idea what it is andâ¦. > > Then we have two that could really improve our language > ? and ! > > Do not tell me that there is a value in these selectors? > > > (#(#+ #- #/ #\ #* #~ #< #> #= #@ #, #% #| #& #? #!) combinations > select: [ :each | each size = 3 and: [ each includesAnyOf: #(#? > #!) ] ]) collect: [ :each | each first, each second, each third ] > > #(#'+-?' #'+-!' #'+/?' #'+/!' #'+\?' #'+\!' #'+*?' #'+*!' #'+~?' #'+~!' > #'+<?' #'+<!' #'+>?' #'+>!' #'+=?' #'+=!' #'+@?' #'+@!' #'+,?' #'+,!' > #'+%?' #'+%!' #'+|?' #'+|!' #'+&?' #'+&!' #'+?!' #'-/?' #'-/!' #'-\?' > #'-\!' #'-*?' #'-*!' #'-~?' #'-~!' #'-<?' #'-<!' #'->?' #'->!' #'-=?' > #'-=!' #'-@?' #'-@!' #'-,?' #'-,!' #'-%?' #'-%!' #'-|?' #'-|!' #'-&?' > #'-&!' #'-?!' #'/\?' #'/\!' #'/*?' #'/*!' #'/~?' #'/~!' #'/<?' #'/<!' > #'/>?' #'/>!' #'/=?' #'/=!' #'/@?' #'/@!' #'/,?' #'/,!' #'/%?' #'/%!' > #'/|?' #'/|!' #'/&?' #'/&!' #'/?!' #'\*?' #'\*!' #'\~?' #'\~!' #'\<?' > #'\<!' #'\>?' #'\>!' #'\=?' #'\=!' #'\@?' #'\@!' #'\,?' #'\,!' #'\%?' > #'\%!' #'\|?' #'\|!' #'\&?' #'\&!' #'\?!' #'*~?' #'*~!' #'*<?' #'*<!' > #'*>?' #'*>!' #'*=?' #'*=!' #'*@?' #'*@!' #'*,?' #'*,!' #'*%?' #'*%!' > #'*|?' #'*|!' #'*&?' #'*&!' #'*?!' #'~<?' #'~<!' #'~>?' #'~>!' #'~=?' > #'~=!' #'~@?' #'~@!' #'~,?' #'~,!' #'~%?' #'~%!' #'~|?' #'~|!' #'~&?' > #'~&!' #'~?!' #'<>?' #'<>!' #'<=?' #'<=!' #'<@?' #'<@!' #'<,?' #'<,!' > #'<%?' #'<%!' #'<|?' #'<|!' #'<&?' #'<&!' #'<?!' #'>=?' #'>=!' #'>@?' > #'>@!' #'>,?' #'>,!' #'>%?' #'>%!' #'>|?' #'>|!' #'>&?' #'>&!' #'>?!' > #'=@?' #'=@!' #'=,?' #'=,!' #'=%?' #'=%!' #'=|?' #'=|!' #'=&?' #'=&!' > #'=?!' #'@,?' #'@,!' #'@%?' #'@%!' #'@|?' #'@|!' #'@&?' #'@&!' #'@?!' > #',%?' #',%!' #',|?' #',|!' #',&?' #',&!' #',?!' #'%|?' #'%|!' #'%&?' > #'%&!' #'%?!' #'|&?' #'|&!' #'|?!' #'&?!â) > > may be this one #&?! is useful for WTF! > > And because of that we sacrifice having nice method names! > I really think that we should change that. > > S. > > > >

Sept. 11, 2019

Re: [Pharo-dev] I have a dream... or why I think that compatibility is an illusion and bring us to the past

by phil＠highoctane.be

Yes, it would. On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 10:55 PM Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > > > > On 10 Sep 2019, at 22:14, ducasse <stepharo(a)netcourrier.com> wrote: > > > > Then we have two that could really improve our language > > ? and ! > > I never thought about that, but indeed, that would be quite nice. > > >

Sept. 10, 2019

Re: [Pharo-dev] I have a dream... or why I think that compatibility is an illusion and bring us to the past

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

> On 10 Sep 2019, at 22:14, ducasse <stepharo(a)netcourrier.com> wrote: > > Then we have two that could really improve our language > ? and ! I never thought about that, but indeed, that would be quite nice.

Sept. 10, 2019

I have a dream... or why I think that compatibility is an illusion and bring us to the past

by ducasse

I would love to retract ? and ! from the list of binary selectors. Iâm super super frustrated that predicates cannot be easily identifiable. for example is lineUpBlockBrackets an action or a testing method. I think that we are trapped in mistakes from the past. In racket and scheme and I guess ruby too we can use ? in the method and this change the game. self lineUpBlockBrackets? We have plenty of binary selector parts that are not used and think that it is frustrating. Let us check: Character specialCharacters '+-/\*~<>=@,%|&?!Â·Ã·Â±Ã' + - / \ ~ < > = @ , & | % those are ok I have no idea what is Â· nor how to type it. Ã· looks from the past. Â± so funny Ã no idea what it is andâ¦. Then we have two that could really improve our language ? and ! Do not tell me that there is a value in these selectors? (#(#+ #- #/ #\ #* #~ #< #> #= #@ #, #% #| #& #? #!) combinations select: [ :each | each size = 3 and: [ each includesAnyOf: #(#? #!) ] ]) collect: [ :each | each first, each second, each third ] #(#'+-?' #'+-!' #'+/?' #'+/!' #'+\?' #'+\!' #'+*?' #'+*!' #'+~?' #'+~!' #'+<?' #'+<!' #'+>?' #'+>!' #'+=?' #'+=!' #'+@?' #'+@!' #'+,?' #'+,!' #'+%?' #'+%!' #'+|?' #'+|!' #'+&?' #'+&!' #'+?!' #'-/?' #'-/!' #'-\?' #'-\!' #'-*?' #'-*!' #'-~?' #'-~!' #'-<?' #'-<!' #'->?' #'->!' #'-=?' #'-=!' #'-@?' #'-@!' #'-,?' #'-,!' #'-%?' #'-%!' #'-|?' #'-|!' #'-&?' #'-&!' #'-?!' #'/\?' #'/\!' #'/*?' #'/*!' #'/~?' #'/~!' #'/<?' #'/<!' #'/>?' #'/>!' #'/=?' #'/=!' #'/@?' #'/@!' #'/,?' #'/,!' #'/%?' #'/%!' #'/|?' #'/|!' #'/&?' #'/&!' #'/?!' #'\*?' #'\*!' #'\~?' #'\~!' #'\<?' #'\<!' #'\>?' #'\>!' #'\=?' #'\=!' #'\@?' #'\@!' #'\,?' #'\,!' #'\%?' #'\%!' #'\|?' #'\|!' #'\&?' #'\&!' #'\?!' #'*~?' #'*~!' #'*<?' #'*<!' #'*>?' #'*>!' #'*=?' #'*=!' #'*@?' #'*@!' #'*,?' #'*,!' #'*%?' #'*%!' #'*|?' #'*|!' #'*&?' #'*&!' #'*?!' #'~<?' #'~<!' #'~>?' #'~>!' #'~=?' #'~=!' #'~@?' #'~@!' #'~,?' #'~,!' #'~%?' #'~%!' #'~|?' #'~|!' #'~&?' #'~&!' #'~?!' #'<>?' #'<>!' #'<=?' #'<=!' #'<@?' #'<@!' #'<,?' #'<,!' #'<%?' #'<%!' #'<|?' #'<|!' #'<&?' #'<&!' #'<?!' #'>=?' #'>=!' #'>@?' #'>@!' #'>,?' #'>,!' #'>%?' #'>%!' #'>|?' #'>|!' #'>&?' #'>&!' #'>?!' #'=@?' #'=@!' #'=,?' #'=,!' #'=%?' #'=%!' #'=|?' #'=|!' #'=&?' #'=&!' #'=?!' #'@,?' #'@,!' #'@%?' #'@%!' #'@|?' #'@|!' #'@&?' #'@&!' #'@?!' #',%?' #',%!' #',|?' #',|!' #',&?' #',&!' #',?!' #'%|?' #'%|!' #'%&?' #'%&!' #'%?!' #'|&?' #'|&!' #'|?!' #'&?!â) may be this one #&?! is useful for WTF! And because of that we sacrifice having nice method names! I really think that we should change that. S.

Sept. 10, 2019

[Pharo 8.0] Build #723: 4547-CompiledCode-misses-a-subclassResponsibilty-for-methodClass

by ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2＠inria.fr

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #723 was: FAILURE. The Pull Request #4548 was integrated: "4547-CompiledCode-misses-a-subclassResponsibilty-for-methodClass" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/4548 Issue Url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/issues/4547 Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%2…

Sept. 10, 2019

[Pharo 8.0] Build #722: 4545-fix-callers-of-ObjectlogCr--deprecated

by ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2＠inria.fr

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #722 was: SUCCESS. The Pull Request #4546 was integrated: "4545-fix-callers-of-ObjectlogCr--deprecated" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/4546 Issue Url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/issues/4545 Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%2…

Sept. 10, 2019