Yes, it would. On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 10:55 PM Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:

...

On 10 Sep 2019, at 22:14, ducasse <stepharo@netcourrier.com> wrote:

Then we have two that could really improve our language ? and !

I never thought about that, but indeed, that would be quite nice.

I feel an APL forcefield growing. Phil On Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 02:14 Gabriel Cotelli <g.cotelli@gmail.com> wrote:

Looks like Christmas season opened early this year :)

Jokes aside, I'm in favor of changing some of the characters we use for binary selectors to allow it to be used in keyword/unary messages.

I'll include % in that list. For me its more useful as a way to create percentages ( 5 % ) than to be used as a binary message for keeping an ugly name from C-like languages.

- · is middle dot and it's used in some math operations AFAIR - × is used in math also (it's used as the multiplication sign for scalars, cross product for vectors and cartesian product for sets)

One thing that would be really cool is that we can use the full power of Unicode in methods/class names. Projects like polymath and DSLs can clearly take advantage of that. Some examples I've just invented, but can be supported:

-

∑ from: 1 to: 5 do: [:i | i + i squared ] -

1 ≥ 3 -

∃ anyIn: #( 1 2 4) such: [:x | x isPrime ] -

∅ includes: 1

On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 5:15 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.

On 11 Sep 2019, at 02:13, Gabriel Cotelli <g.cotelli@gmail.com> wrote:

Looks like Christmas season opened early this year :)

Jokes aside, I'm in favor of changing some of the characters we use for binary selectors to allow it to be used in keyword/unary messages.

I'll include % in that list. For me its more useful as a way to create percentages ( 5 % ) than to be used as a binary message for keeping an ugly name from C-like languages.

Can you explain? Because I thought that % was used and right now it is a binary selector so I would not change it.

· is middle dot and it's used in some math operations AFAIR × is used in math also (it's used as the multiplication sign for scalars, cross product for vectors and cartesian product for sets) Yes I know. We can let them rot in peace.

One thing that would be really cool is that we can use the full power of Unicode in methods/class names. Projects like polymath and DSLs can clearly take advantage of that. Some examples I've just invented, but can be supported:

∑ from: 1 to: 5 do: [:i | i + i squared ] 1 ≥ 3 ∃ anyIn: #( 1 2 4) such: [:x | x isPrime ] ∅ includes: 1

:) Why not :) For me the first step is to be able to rescue ? and ! from decay and give us a MUCH better way to convey meaning. Just for the fun look at the method of the BIContext to see what I mean. I’m refactoring the API of the new formatter and it is so frustrating to not being able to express interrogation nicely.

On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 5:15 PM ducasse <stepharo@netcourrier.com <mailto: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.

Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 à 10:40, Serge Stinckwich <serge.stinckwich@gmail.com> a écrit :

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 2:14 AM Gabriel Cotelli <g.cotelli@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Looks like Christmas season opened early this year :)

Jokes aside, I'm in favor of changing some of the characters we use for binary selectors to allow it to be used in keyword/unary messages.

I'll include % in that list. For me its more useful as a way to create percentages ( 5 % ) than to be used as a binary message for keeping an ugly name from C-like languages.

- · is middle dot and it's used in some math operations AFAIR - × is used in math also (it's used as the multiplication sign for scalars, cross product for vectors and cartesian product for sets)

One thing that would be really cool is that we can use the full power of Unicode in methods/class names. Projects like polymath and DSLs can clearly take advantage of that. Some examples I've just invented, but can be supported:

-

∑ from: 1 to: 5 do: [:i | i + i squared ] -

1 ≥ 3 -

∃ anyIn: #( 1 2 4) such: [:x | x isPrime ] -

∅ includes: 1

Yes I would like to have something like that for PolyMath :-) Is it possible to use Unicode characters for identifiers already ?

I working on the port of : https://github.com/len/Domains to Pharo. The author modify the Cuis parser, so he can do things like that :

"⊕ is used for direct sums, ⊗ for tensor products, × for cartesian product, direct product of groups, ring products, and in general for categorical products."

Of course we want to be able to use those selectors: ⊕ ⊗ etc... Not using those selectors in core image is one thing, forbiding their usage for every package is another thing Concerning the selectors with more than 2 characters, there are two examples in use in Squeak ==> logical implication (I use it a lot when writing tests cases) <=> space ship operator /// has been used in the past (but is rather deprecated) What is questionable is cultural acceptance of universal meaning of a Symbol <=> could have meant logical equivalence, but it would be pointless, because = (and == thanks to singleton) are already equivalence. It has been expunged from Pharo to my regrets, because it is - beautifully self defined as < = > - culturally legitimate - the art of original author (Travis Griggs) There is no sacred cow, but respect of author has a value for me. It's sure that every binary selector might be questionable, at least in core image. For application, you never know (think DSL) we can create a lot of not completely inaesthetic ASCII styles <|> >< <+> <-> /+/ |*| For example +/- could be used for interval arithmetic (if we don't want to pay the burden of typing unicode, which ain't easy) /\ \/ intersection and union |\| the Nicolas operator - I didn't fin a usage for it yet ;) etc... So why would one want to forbid them? For ? and ! I do not foresee elegant usage as binary, but would not miss them as regular letters eithers. It means accepting huge??? - understand isReallyHuge :) huge?:or!:???and: which are not less questionable. Ideally, it should be really easy to define one's own syntax in any class (already possible with own compiler/parser/scanner/whatever), or maybe any method I find that it's somehow more complex with the well engineered new Compiler than it was with the very hackish legacy one, but that's a detail.

and also define ^ as a binary method:

"The ^ (hat) operator is used for exponentiation as well as conjugation by group elements, and for creating free modules of tuples and matrices."

I'm not sure this is a good idea, because ^ is used also to return values.

There is no ambiguity for ^ and i have proposed that in Squeak years ago, it's a very simple change (here for legacy Compiler) http://source.squeak.org/inbox/Compiler-nice.280.diff The only argument against it is that omitting the point ending last but one sentence would not be detected as invalid syntax self doThis. ^self doThat versus self doThis ^self doThat To address this concern, we could have rules concerning the formatting: normally we would write self doThis ^ self doThat or eventually if on several lines, we would generally indent self doThis ^ self doThat An unusual formatting is a code smell IMO And in fact, this is not much different from un-detecting when we send a message #self when forgetting the point self doThis self doThat self doThis self doThat.

A+ -- Serge Stinckwic h

Int. Research Unit on Modelling/Simulation of Complex Systems (UMMISCO) Sorbonne University (SU) French National Research Institute for Sustainable Development (IRD) U niversity of Yaoundé I, Cameroon "Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute." https://twitter.com/SergeStinckwich

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.

+1 for #shouldXxx I recall I use it a lot too, and #isXxx where that reads better but am struggling for examples. Tim Sent from my iPhone

On 13 Sep 2019, at 02:37, Mariano Martinez Peck <marianopeck@gmail.com> wrote:

...

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.

Hi Stef,

I have been facing this ambiguity a lot too. And my workaround, most of the times, was also to prefer the "question" method with #should. #is just doesn't sound right in my cases, but #should does sound good in most of them. I would still like to find a better one, but for the moment, in my recent years, I am stuck with #should.

-- Mariano Martinez Peck Email: marianopeck@gmail.com Twitter: @MartinezPeck LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/mariano-martinez-peck Blog: https://marianopeck.wordpress.com/

On 13 Sep 2019, at 14:11, Esteban Maringolo <emaringolo@gmail.com> wrote:

Some examples of testing methods verb prefixes I use:

shouldXxx (#shouldOverwrite) isXxx (#isEmpty #isNil hasXxx (#hasContents) canXxx (#canDeleteProperty)

didXxx (#didRemoveFiles) willXxx (#willCreateNewAssets)

this is for the following ones that I do not like that the only difference between an action and a question is an s

usesXxx (#usesDirectTransfer) containsXxx (#containsPlots) definesXxx (#definesGlobals)

I'm in favor of having more symbols available as binary selectors, but I don't see the use of ? and ! as unary selectors other than the technical challenge of making the change, with the added burden of breaking compatibility.

In a perfect world no testing is required and everything is solved by delegation, but we all know that sometimes the added complexity is not worth it.

:) If only For the pretty printer we have around 30 different parameters. I do not imagine my self having 30 classes to which I would delegate something.

Regards,

Esteban A. Maringolo

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 9:00 AM Tim Mackinnon <tim@testit.works> wrote:

...

+1 for #shouldXxx I recall I use it a lot too, and #isXxx where that reads better but am struggling for examples.

Tim

Sent from my iPhone

On 13 Sep 2019, at 02:37, Mariano Martinez Peck <marianopeck@gmail.com> wrote:

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.

Hi Stef,

I have been facing this ambiguity a lot too. And my workaround, most of the times, was also to prefer the "question" method with #should. #is just doesn't sound right in my cases, but #should does sound good in most of them. I would still like to find a better one, but for the moment, in my recent years, I am stuck with #should.

-- Mariano Martinez Peck Email: marianopeck@gmail.com Twitter: @MartinezPeck LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/mariano-martinez-peck Blog: https://marianopeck.wordpress.com/

I agree with Ben’s reaction below , however the point that ? ! could be repurposed for something if they weren’t special characters is a good one. Maybe there are other usages we are missing, and that’s the point I guess. Tim Sent from my iPhone

On 13 Sep 2019, at 17:41, Ben Coman <btc@openinworld.com> wrote:

...

On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 15:10, 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"

Agreed. That could "almost" be construed as converting a 3 to a 2 or 4.

...

...

flag2 := anInteger isEven. “better"

Agreed. It reads well.

...

...

flag3 := anInteger even?. “how much better?”

For me, this doesn't read as well as flag2, but even though there is some redundancy, for me a combination reads well... flag3a := anInteger isEven? Perhaps if "?"==>Boolean was a strong convention then there could be a check when the value is returned rather than when it is used (or would that complicate other things?)

...

...

flag4 := #(1 2 3) includes?: 2. “how much better?”

My first impression is "yuck!", but then I think... "maybe" if there was a definite benefit (i.e. optimization) from strong guarantees about the return value being Boolean.

...

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.

btw, some alternatives... doBlockBracketsLineUp - reads well but "do" is already a loaded word areBlockBracketsLinedUp - reads well with the past-tense phrasing

cheers -ben

Crazy idea inspired by Spanish: ¿even? On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 04:38 ducasse <stepharo@netcourrier.com> wrote:

On 13 Sep 2019, at 20:52, Tim Mackinnon <tim@testit.works> wrote:

I agree with Ben’s reaction below , however the point that ? ! could be repurposed for something if they weren’t special characters is a good one. Maybe there are other usages we are missing, and that’s the point I guess.

Exactly. I think that it would be nice to think a bit. I like the idea that I do not have to read the code to understand if a method is a predicate.

odd? even?

Stef

Tim

Sent from my iPhone

On 13 Sep 2019, at 17:41, Ben Coman <btc@openinworld.com> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 15:10, 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"

Agreed. That could "almost" be construed as converting a 3 to a 2 or 4.

...

flag2 := anInteger isEven. “better"

Agreed. It reads well.

...

flag3 := anInteger even?. “how much better?”

For me, this doesn't read as well as flag2, but even though there is some redundancy, for me a combination reads well... flag3a := anInteger isEven? Perhaps if "?"==>Boolean was a strong convention then there could be a check when the value is returned rather than when it is used (or would that complicate other things?)

...

flag4 := #(1 2 3) includes?: 2. “how much better?”

My first impression is "yuck!", but then I think... "maybe" if there was a definite benefit (i.e. optimization) from strong guarantees about the return value being Boolean.

...

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.

btw, some alternatives... doBlockBracketsLineUp - reads well but "do" is already a loaded word areBlockBracketsLinedUp - reads well with the past-tense phrasing

cheers -ben

--

Christopher Fuhrman, P.Eng., PhD *Professeur au Département de génie logiciel et des technologies de l'informationÉTS (École de technologie supérieure)* http://profs.etsmtl.ca/cfuhrman +1 514 396 8638 *L'ÉTS est une constituante de l'Université du Québec*