On 19 Jun 2014, at 15:47, Tudor Girba <tudor@tudorgirba.com> wrote:
In other engines where we want scripting to be used, we use a cull: or value: with a prefix. In the case of Spec, this could be specCull:cull:. This could be used as an extension of Symbol without spawning religious wars :).
Yes, also I can use a block with 1 param. The thing is that as far as I understand cull:cull: means: if possible: âvalue:value:â else if possible: âvalue:â else âvalueâ So this can work for block. But maybe cull: has different philosophy Uko
The funny thing is that in all these engines that do define special value: like methods, the implementation looks exactly the same. Perhaps this should tell us that it would be worth having it by default.
Doru
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk@me.com> wrote: The thing is that cull:cull: can be used on block with 1 parameter. If you consider symbol as a block with one parameter then it will work in the same style.
In other words: methods that use value:value: want to ensure that they are working with 2 param block. Methods that use cull:cull: donât care what is there, but allow you to customise the result with up to 2 parameters. With symbol you can customise it with 1 parameter.
Uko
On 19 Jun 2014, at 14:08, Henrik Johansen <henrik.s.johansen@veloxit.no> wrote:
On 19 Jun 2014, at 1:42 , Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk@me.com> wrote:
Hi,
maybe we should implement #cull:cull: in symbol so that it will call #cull:? Because this looks correct, if block has 1 parameter, then #cull:cull: boils down to #value:, but when we have a symbol instead, we have an exception.
I can open an issue and implement that stuff, but I want a feedback from the conceptual point of view.
Uko
#cull: is supposed to be the equivalent to the #value: protocol, where the parameter is optional.
Symbol has no #value:value: message, hence it should have no #cull:cull: either.
You could argue it should implement both, with value:value: polymorphic to the block [:a :b | a perform: theSymbol with: b ].
but cull:cull: would then mean equivalence to: for #+ [:a :b | a + b] for #squared [:a | a self]
And I donât see how thatâd be intuitive/useful enough to warrant inclusion
Considering the sole reason cull: on Symbol exists, is to allow select: etc. to be written using cull so the block arg is optional, but still do aCollection collect: #mySymbol, the closest equivalent would be . aCollection sort: #> / aCollection inject: 0 into: #+ which, while might be nice, both have no use for cull:cull: in the same manner: aCollection inject: 0 into: #squared -> [:sub :next | sub squared] ???
The whole "who is the receiver, whatâs going on»-factor of cull:cull: on symbol is non-intuitive enough that at least I feel itâs better to write out the block explicitly.
Cheers, Henry
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"Every thing has its own flow"