Implementing cull:cull: in symbol
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
I believe this was already discussed long ago, with a decision not to go further that #cull: (or #value:) on Symbol, some even find that too much from a design perspective. I like writing code like #(1 2 3) collect: #asString especially interactively, since it is less verbose. In what situation did you encounter a need to add #cull:cull: to Symbol ? On 19 Jun 2014, at 13:42, 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
For example in Specâs ListModel there is a thing called displayBlock:. And I have to write `list displayBlock: [ :package | package name ]`, while I think that `list displayBlock: #name` is clear enough, but the block receives #cull:cull: Uko On 19 Jun 2014, at 13:52, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:
I believe this was already discussed long ago, with a decision not to go further that #cull: (or #value:) on Symbol, some even find that too much from a design perspective.
I like writing code like
#(1 2 3) collect: #asString
especially interactively, since it is less verbose.
In what situation did you encounter a need to add #cull:cull: to Symbol ?
On 19 Jun 2014, at 13:42, 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
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
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
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: 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"
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"
Can somebody please tell me the semantic difference between #cull: and #value: ? 'Cull' is not a word I ever used in any english based conversation :) Regards, -- Esteban. ps: I'm a big fan of having a "valuable" protocol, implemented by both Symbol and BlockClosure (and MessageSend), and I miss this behavior in Pharo. Esteban A. Maringolo 2014-06-19 11:14 GMT-03:00 Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk@me.com>:
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"
http://www.wordreference.com/es/translation.asp?tranword=cull yet, it does not looks like having anything to do with executing a block with optional parameters :) On 19 Jun 2014, at 11:24, Esteban A. Maringolo <emaringolo@gmail.com> wrote:
Can somebody please tell me the semantic difference between #cull: and #value: ? 'Cull' is not a word I ever used in any english based conversation :)
Regards,
-- Esteban.
ps: I'm a big fan of having a "valuable" protocol, implemented by both Symbol and BlockClosure (and MessageSend), and I miss this behavior in Pharo.
Esteban A. Maringolo
2014-06-19 11:14 GMT-03:00 Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk@me.com>:
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"
A stretch for rational behind cull: We are 'culling' the excess variables passed to the block (roughly equivalent to killing animals when there are too many of them). On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 7:31 AM, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm@gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.wordreference.com/es/translation.asp?tranword=cull
yet, it does not looks like having anything to do with executing a block with optional parameters :)
On 19 Jun 2014, at 11:24, Esteban A. Maringolo <emaringolo@gmail.com> wrote:
Can somebody please tell me the semantic difference between #cull: and #value: ? 'Cull' is not a word I ever used in any english based conversation :)
Regards,
-- Esteban.
ps: I'm a big fan of having a "valuable" protocol, implemented by both Symbol and BlockClosure (and MessageSend), and I miss this behavior in Pharo.
Esteban A. Maringolo
2014-06-19 11:14 GMT-03:00 Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk@me.com>:
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"
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:24:33AM -0300, Esteban A. Maringolo wrote:
Can somebody please tell me the semantic difference between #cull: and #value: ? 'Cull' is not a word I ever used in any english based conversation :)
Hi Esteban, I am an American English speaker, and I have never used the word 'cull' in conversation or in writing. I recognize it as a real word, but I had to look it up in a dictionary to see what it means. Dave
Le 20 juin 2014 02:16, "David T. Lewis" <lewis@mail.msen.com> a écrit :
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:24:33AM -0300, Esteban A. Maringolo wrote:
Can somebody please tell me the semantic difference between #cull: and
#value: ?
'Cull' is not a word I ever used in any english based conversation :)
Hi Esteban,
I am an American English speaker, and I have never used the word 'cull' in conversation or in writing. I recognize it as a real word, but I had to look it up in a dictionary to see what it means.
Dave
Extensive usage here... http://stargate.wikia.com/wiki/Culling You'll see cull: with a new eye now :-p Phil
On 19/6/14 14:08, Henrik Johansen 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
+1
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
On 20 Jun 2014, at 22:59, stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote:
On 19/6/14 14:08, Henrik Johansen 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
+1
Iâm not telling to implement #value:value: but #cull:cull: which is equivalent to #value: so instead of [ :var | var name ] I can use just #name
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
participants (10)
-
Chris Cunningham -
David T. Lewis -
Esteban A. Maringolo -
Esteban Lorenzano -
Henrik Johansen -
phil＠highoctane.be -
stepharo -
Sven Van Caekenberghe -
Tudor Girba -
Yuriy Tymchuk