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.�� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ���not good"
>�� �� �� ��flag2 := anInteger isEven.�� �� �� ���better"
>�� �� �� ��flag3 := anInteger even?.�� �� �� �����how much better?���
>�� �� �� ��flag4 := #(1 2 3) includes?: 2. ���how much better?���

I think that I would use ? mainly for unary message

Now I���m 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.

> I���m not convinced that having another way to indicate a testing method will help if people still don���t 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 don���t seem to be much improved!

Pay attention you cannot use ! as separator.
For ! I do not care now.

> I���m not arguing for ���compatibility" or "staying in the past." I���m 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.
>> I���m 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
>>
>>�� �� �� '+-/\*~<>=@,%|&?!��������'
>>
>> +
>> -
>> /
>> \
>> ~
>> <
>>>
>> =
>> @
>> ,
>> &
>> |
>> %
>>
>> those are ok
>>
>> I have no idea what is �� nor how to type it.
>> �� looks from the past.
>> �� so funny
>> �� no idea what it is and���.
>>
>> 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 ]
>>
>> #(#'+-?' #'+-!' #'+/?' #'+/!' #'+\?' #'+\!' #'+*?' #'+*!' #'+~?' #'+~!' #'+<?' #'+<!' #'+>?' #'+>!' #'+=?' #'+=!' #'+@?' #'+@!' #'+,?' #'+,!' #'+%?' #'+%!' #'+|?' #'+|!' #'+&?' #'+&!' #'+?!' #'-/?' #'-/!' #'-\?' #'-\!' #'-*?' #'-*!' #'-~?' #'-~!' #'-<?' #'-<!' #'->?' #'->!' #'-=?' #'-=!' #'-@?' #'-@!' #'-,?' #'-,!' #'-%?' #'-%!' #'-|?' #'-|!' #'-&?' #'-&!' #'-?!' #'/\?' #'/\!' #'/*?' #'/*!' #'/~?' #'/~!' #'/<?' #'/<!' #'/>?' #'/>!' #'/=?' #'/=!' #'/@?' #'/@!' #'/,?' #'/,!' #'/%?' #'/%!' #'/|?' #'/|!' #'/&?' #'/&!' #'/?!' #'\*?' #'\*!' #'\~?' #'\~!' #'\<?' #'\<!' #'\>?' #'\>!' #'\=?' #'\=!' #'\@?' #'\@!' #'\,?' #'\,!' #'\%?' #'\%!' #'\|?' #'\|!' #'\&?' #'\&!' #'\?!' #'*~?' #'*~!' #'*<?' #'*<!' #'*>?' #'*>!' #'*=?' #'*=!' #'*@?' #'*@!' #'*,?' #'*,!' #'*%?' #'*%!' #'*|?' #'*|!' #'*&?' #'*&!' #'*?!' #'~<?' #'~<!' #'~>?' #'~>!' #'~=?' #'~=!' #'~@?' #'~@!' #'~,?' #'~,!' #'~%?' #'~%!' #'~|?' #'~|!' #'~&?' #'~&!' #'~?!' #'<>?' #'<>!' #'<=?' #'<=!' #'<@?' #'<@!' #'<,?' #'<,!' #'<%?' #'<%!' #'<|?' #'<|!' #'<&?' #'<&!' #'<?!' #'>=?' #'>=!' #'>@?' #'>@!' #'>,?' #'>,!' #'>%?' #'>%!' #'>|?' #'>|!' #'>&?' #'>&!' #'>?!' #'=@?' #'=@!' #'=,?' #'=,!' #'=%?' #'=%!' #'=|?' #'=|!' #'=&?' #'=&!' #'=?!' #'@,?' #'@,!' #'@%?' #'@%!' #'@|?' #'@|!' #'@&?' #'@&!' #'@?!' #',%?' #',%!' #',|?' #',|!' #',&?' #',&!' #',?!' #'%|?' #'%|!' #'%&?' #'%&!' #'%?!' #'|&?' #'|&!' #'|?!' #'&?!���)
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>