Yes but... in Pharo strings are collections and a ton of things can be done with collections already. Other languages have more "basic" strings and are cutting them in all ways possible but not as collections. things like detect, inject etc are not really in the repertoire of other languages. Okay, there are chop, split, ... but these are pretty basic things. Why not have a test suite with a test for demonstrating how to do these things with the platform we do have? e.g. testChomp, testSplit, ...all put in a Tests-Strings-RubyStyle or Tests-Strings-PythonStyle packages? And like there are Seaside-Pharo-XXX packages, why not a String-Ruby-XXXX thing ? Phil On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Sebastian Sastre < sebastian@flowingconcept.com> wrote:
cool!
Reviewing String is a chance to provide a clean, brief, readable API for what's probably the most popular set of needs.
If you're starting with computing it wont take too long to try to modify strings and get value from it. So doing more with the tool (instead of abandoning it for an easier alternative) is more likely. If you're a veteran engineer you *will* face that too and end up appreciating the convenience.
If you can do that in intuitive english instead of cryptic-memory-addicted things like printlf, etc then it's an all win.
Also wanted to say that you probably developed your most successful strategy but there is no single path or way to explore a system. Nature loves to try everything, all the paths, and select the most universally convenient.
The more bridges we build the better*
So, if the API additions are intuitive, then I'm all for it
sebastian <https://about.me/sebastianconcept>
o/
*because, among other things, we would make possible the success of less myopic software models / views of the world / future innovations
On Feb 25, 2014, at 3:48 AM, Pharo4Stef <pharo4Stef@free.fr> wrote:
this is exactly the point of the project. Rethinking the API. And writing a systematic analysis of the situation so that we can get an overview.
Stef