On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 10:49:02AM +0200, Esteban Lorenzano wrote:
I think there is a consensus we need to keep #cr and #lf as intended, yet to add some kind of #newLine (which btw is different to EOL :P) vocabulary, isn???t?
In this, I favour Peter approach for define line ending convention (the way #newLine will work)??? and of course by default it should use the one from the current platform.
anything agains this approach?
Esteban
+1 I prefer #nl to #newLine, but admit that it is a subjective preference and that descriptive names are generally better. Cheers, Alistair
On 4 Aug 2017, at 23:48, Tudor Girba <tudor@tudorgirba.com> wrote:
+1.
We need a basic representation of those characters. Logical ones should be derived from the simple ones.
Doru
On Aug 4, 2017, at 3:44 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4 Aug 2017, at 15:41, Damien Pollet <damien.pollet@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree with Pablo, #cr and #lf should not be clever and just be names for the carriage return and linefeed characters/codepoints.
+1
Making #newLine's behavior dependent on the current platform disturbs me, though. I'd rather have:
Stream >> newLineFor: platform self nextPutAll: platform lineEnding
Stream >> newLineForCurrentPlatform self newLineFor: OSPlatform current
Stream >> newLineForWindows "convenience for the most common platforms Stream >> newLineForUnix Stream >> newLineForHistoricReasons
Stream >> newLine "delegates to one of the above, I'd argue for unix for convenience, but windows is the technically correct combination of cr + lf, and cr only is the historic one"
On 4 August 2017 at 14:25, tesonep@gmail.com <tesonep@gmail.com> wrote: To me it is clear that cr and lf should be in streams. But they should put the 'cr' or 'lf' character only. And of course the platform independent newline should be also.
The first (cr, lf) should be used by the code wanting to have absolute control of what is in the stream. The later (newline) when you just want a new line.
The two have completely different behaviour, ones are really low level, the other is higher level.
On 4 Aug 2017 14:20, "Esteban Lorenzano" <estebanlm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4 Aug 2017, at 14:06, Stephane Ducasse <stepharo.self@gmail.com> wrote:
Well. This is not implemented like that in Pharo.
cr is bad because it does not mean that it is independent of the platform. So cr can be redefined as newLine and keep but not used inside the system.
sometimes you actually want to write a cr (or a lf). So it needs to remain in the system, of course. now, including #newLine can be cool (most of the times you want the ???platform compatible??? new line). Also I would consider including #nl, abbreviated??? just for convenience :P
Esteban
Stef
On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Jan Vrany <jan.vrany@fit.cvut.cz> wrote:
On Fri, 2017-08-04 at 12:03 +0200, Stephane Ducasse wrote:
Hi guys
While writing pillar code, I ended up using "stream cr" and it worries me to still expand usage of a pattern I would like to remove.
Let us imagine that we would like to prepare the migration from cr. I was thinking that we could replace cr invocation by newLine so that after newLine could be redefined as
Stream >> newLine self nextPutAll: OSPlatform current lineEnding
what do you think about this approach?
Why not? But please keep #cr.
Section 5.9.4.1 of ANSI reads:
Message: cr
Synopsis Writes an end-of-line sequence to the receiver.
Definition: <puttableStream> A sequence of character objects that constitute the implementation- defined end-of-line sequence is added to the receiver in the same manner as if the message #nextPutAll: was sent to the receiver with an argument string whose elements are the sequence of characters.
Return Value UNSPECIFIED Errors It is erroneous if any element of the end-of-line sequence is an object that does not conform to the receiver's sequence value type .
my 2c,
Jan
Stef
-- Damien Pollet type less, do more [ | ] http://people.untyped.org/damien.pollet