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

Sept. 11, 2019

      Using ? for unary messages does not compose so well when you want to do
some logical conditions.
For example
self isClass? or: [ self isTrait? ] . It's readable, but probably you want
the ? just at the end of the sentence.

For ! one use case is to use it for factorial, like we do in Math. So 5 !
--> 120.
Also I don't know any good use case for ! as binary selector.

? has only one implementor in the Pharo image in some Url related code for
query parameters.

BTW, still using * for multiplication feels so 90's. :)

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 4:10 AM ducasse <stepharo@netcourrier.com> wrote:
...
...
On 11 Sep 2019, at 04:07, James Foster <Smalltalk@JGFoster.net> wrote:
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?â
I think that I would use ? mainly for unary message
Now Iâm sure that if you look carefully some people use
include
                for the action
        includes
                for the tests
I took include as an example and this is super not intention revealing.
...
...
lineUpBlockBrackets
lineUpBlockBrackets?
        Now I will rewrite them all as shouldLineUpBlockBrackets or
isLineUpBlockBrackets and to me for unary message ? makes it a lot 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!
Pay attention you cannot use ! as separator.
For ! I do not care now.
...
Iâm not arguing for âcompatibility" or "staying in the past." Iâm just
trying to understand the benefit.
The question ?
...
Thanks,
James
...
On Sep 10, 2019, at 1:14 PM, ducasse <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.

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

Gabriel Cotelli