groupByRuns: looks good to me. On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Todd Blanchard <tblanchard@mac.com> wrote:
I'm kind of trying to figure out when I'd want that operation.
groupsWithSeparatorsWhereSeparatatorsMatch: feels like it says what it does
On Dec 12, 2017, at 10:19 AM, Ben Coman <btc@openinworld.com> wrote:
On 12 December 2017 at 20:03, Nicolas Cellier <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice@gmail.com> wrote:
2017-12-12 13:01 GMT+01:00 Henrik Sperre Johansen <henrik.s.johansen@veloxit.no>:
Ben Coman wrote
But after pondering a while for a better name, I wonder what is wrong with the existing? Googling "define aggregate" provides... aggregate (noun) = a whole formed by combining several separate elements. aggregate (verb) = form or group into a class or cluster.
The separate elements are runs defined by the block. The existing name seems quite precise to me.
cheers -ben
When I read aggregateRuns:, I think the opposite; something combining different runs into a single entity, not something that splits a single collection into constituent runs...
okay. I can understand that perspective.
Something like (split/collect)runsAccordingTo: sounds more descriptive to my ears, at least.
Cheers, Henry
I like groupBy: but in Squeak groupBy: produces a dictionary with unique keys ignoring the multiple sequences... split already carries the meaning of preserving the sequences, but we have to tell to split at a change of value.... Run is also quite explicit...
groupByRuns: / splitRuns:
+1 groupByRuns: is good.
cheers -ben