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 :).

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: don�t 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 don�t see how that�d 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, what�s going on�-factor of cull:cull: on symbol is non-intuitive enough that at least I feel it�s better to write out the block explicitly.
>
> Cheers,
> Henry

--

www.tudorgirba.com

"Every thing has its own flow"