March 2015 - Pharo-users - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-users] when iterating over a collection how to determine the current objects index

by Norbert Hartl

Always try to do it as you would say it anObject = aCollection last Norbert > Am 10.03.2015 um 15:05 schrieb Joachim Tuchel <jtuchel(a)objektfabrik.de>: > > (aCollection indexOf: anObject) = aCollection size > > > >> Am 10.03.2015 um 14:47 schrieb Sanjay Minni <sm(a)planage.com>: >> >> >> sorry folks ... >> >> so back to terra firma ... >> >> 1. Is there any way to query an object to finds its index value in the >> original collection ... >> say when all the objects from a collection are displayed and user clicks on >> one item - I want to locate the object back in the collection. Knowing the >> index for me would be most efficient. >> >> 2. ... also Is there any way to know if I am on the last element ... >> >> otherwise I will have to explicitly store the index values ... >> >> regards >> Sanjay >> >> >> >> jtuchel wrote >>> Marcus >>> >>> So sorry for this false accusation. It is proprietary in Squeak. >>> And even if it was Dan's idea to rename it, I'd like to learn more about >>> the >>> reasoning. >>> My understanding would be: >>> >>> [...] >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- >> --- >> Regards, Sanjay >> -- >> View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/when-iterating-over-a-collection-how-to-determine-the… >> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> >

March 10, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] Native language support

by Sean P. DeNigris

> Now it is Pharo3.0 Latest update: #30862 and Pharo4.0 Latest update: #40474, but previous updates worked the same (ignore cyrillic capital letters ÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ) > What is the exact image version (incl. update number)? I meant specifically regarding the #isArrow error. I donât think you can be having this in 3.0, so you mean #40474 correct? Is it only after you change the language? ----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Native-language-support-tp4809392p4811000.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

March 10, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] when iterating over a collection how to determine the current objects index

by Peter UhnÃ¡k

> > The Principle Of Least Surprise would imply that the variables appear in > the same order that they appear in the method name. Of course that doesn't > mean you don't get surprised sometimes. Are there any that don't follow > that rule? We should consider fixing them. It would be interesting if > something like autocompletion could supply the template for the block. > It may also depend on which part you apply the principle of least surprise... I personally would expect it to be in the ":key :value" order regardless of the name of the method... most do methods end with 'Do:' so I wouldn't take that as factor in this. Peter

March 10, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] when iterating over a collection how to determine the current objects index

by Peter UhnÃ¡k

> > 1. Is there any way to query an object to finds its index value in the > original collection ... > say when all the objects from a collection are displayed and user clicks on > one item - I want to locate the object back in the collection. Knowing the > index for me would be most efficient. ============================== indexOf: anElement "Answer the index of the first occurrence of anElement within the receiver. If the receiver does not contain anElement, answer 0." ^ self indexOf: anElement ifAbsent: 0 ============================== don't be afraid to look inside Pharo and on Collection protocols. > 2. ... also Is there any way to know if I am on the last element ... > I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve, but you can just compare against the last element (myCollection last = myObject) ifTrue: [ do something ]

March 10, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] when iterating over a collection how to determine the current objects index

by Joachim Tuchel

(aCollection indexOf: anObject) = aCollection size > Am 10.03.2015 um 14:47 schrieb Sanjay Minni <sm(a)planage.com>: > > > sorry folks ... > > so back to terra firma ... > > 1. Is there any way to query an object to finds its index value in the > original collection ... > say when all the objects from a collection are displayed and user clicks on > one item - I want to locate the object back in the collection. Knowing the > index for me would be most efficient. > > 2. ... also Is there any way to know if I am on the last element ... > > otherwise I will have to explicitly store the index values ... > > regards > Sanjay > > > > jtuchel wrote >> Marcus >> >> So sorry for this false accusation. It is proprietary in Squeak. >> And even if it was Dan's idea to rename it, I'd like to learn more about >> the >> reasoning. >> My understanding would be: >> >> [...] > > > > > > ----- > --- > Regards, Sanjay > -- > View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/when-iterating-over-a-collection-how-to-determine-the… > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >

March 10, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] when iterating over a collection how to determine the current objects index

by Thierry Goubier

Hi Sanjay, 2015-03-10 14:47 GMT+01:00 Sanjay Minni <sm(a)planage.com>: > > sorry folks ... > > so back to terra firma ... > > 1. Is there any way to query an object to finds its index value in the > original collection ... > say when all the objects from a collection are displayed and user clicks on > one item - I want to locate the object back in the collection. Knowing the > index for me would be most efficient. > aCollection indexOf: anElement You will often find this code in list-related gui objects. > > 2. ... also Is there any way to know if I am on the last element ... > aCollection last == anElement > > otherwise I will have to explicitly store the index values ... > If you do it more than once per iteration of the collection, it is probably faster to store the indexes. But I wouldn't do it for anything GUI related; indexOf: is efficient enough. Regards, Thierry

March 10, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] when iterating over a collection how to determine the current objects index

by Sanjay Minni

sorry folks ... so back to terra firma ... 1. Is there any way to query an object to finds its index value in the original collection ... say when all the objects from a collection are displayed and user clicks on one item - I want to locate the object back in the collection. Knowing the index for me would be most efficient. 2. ... also Is there any way to know if I am on the last element ... otherwise I will have to explicitly store the index values ... regards Sanjay jtuchel wrote > Marcus > > So sorry for this false accusation. It is proprietary in Squeak. > And even if it was Dan's idea to rename it, I'd like to learn more about > the > reasoning. > My understanding would be: > > [...] ----- --- Regards, Sanjay -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/when-iterating-over-a-collection-how-to-determine-the… Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

March 10, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] when iterating over a collection how to determine the current objects index

by Joachim Tuchel

Marcus So sorry for this false accusation. It is proprietary in Squeak. And even if it was Dan's idea to rename it, I'd like to learn more about the reasoning. My understanding would be: #do: iterates over a collection #doWithIndex: iterates over a collection and also keeps track of the current index. Sounds very consistent to me. the most important thing I want the machine to do is iterate over the collection, and the index thing is just a variant thereof. #do: iterates over a collection #withIndexDo: keeps track of the index while iterating over a collection Sounds clumsy to me. Introduces incompatibilities for not much value. If people complained about #do: as not intentioon revealing and opted to rename it to something like #withEachDo: , then I could understand it. The variant could be #withEachDoIndexed: But not that one ;-) ... but this is completely off-topic of course... Joachim > Marcus Denker <marcus.denker(a)inria.fr> hat am 10. MÃ¤rz 2015 um 14:32 > geschrieben: > > > > > > On 10 Mar 2015, at 14:25, Joachim Tuchel < > > > jtuchel(a)objektfabrik.de <mailto:jtuchel@objektfabrik.de> > wrote: > > > > Sounds like a bad naming to me. I don't see why withIndexDo is any > > better. It even contradicts the order of the arguments. And it is > > Proprietary to Pharo. > > > > > > > > No, if you look a the timeStamp it was done in 1997 by Dan. > > > > > Joachim > > > > > > Am 10.03.2015 um 13:39 schrieb Sanjay Minni < sm(a)planage.com > > <mailto:sm@planage.com> >: > > > > > > > > > Yes usually I have to open the code and see, use > > > > > intuition or write a sample code to find out > > > incidentally here I also have to figure out which is the current > > > and which is the deprecated version ... well thats it > > > > > > sanjay > > > > > > > > > --- > > > Sanjay Minni > > > +91-9900-902902 > > > http://in.linkedin.com/in/sanjayminni > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Thierry Goubier [via Smalltalk] > > > <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > > > And one has to guess that elementAndIndexBlock > > > > > > > means > > > > > > > > [:each :i | ... ] ? (and of course not [:i :each | ... ] ) > > > > > > > > I'm allways looking for senders with that type of code ;) > > > > arguments to blocks are usually not documented. > > > > > > > > Thierry > > > > > > > > 2015-03-10 13:27 GMT+01:00 Peter UhnÃ¡k <[hidden email] > > > > <http:/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=4810931&i=0> >: > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Joachim > > > > > > > > > Tuchel <[hidden email] > > > > > > > > > <http:/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=4810931&i=1> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > #doWithIndex: ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > doWithIndex: elementAndIndexBlock > > > > > "Use the new version with consistent naming" > > > > > ^ self withIndexDo: elementAndIndexBlock > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------- > > > > If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the > > > > discussion below: > > > > > > > > http://forum.world.st/when-iterating-over-a-collection-how-to-determine-the… > > > > To unsubscribe from when iterating over a collection how to > > > > determine the current objects index, click here. > > > > NAML > > > > <http://forum.world.st/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=macro_viewer&id=instan…> > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > Regards, Sanjay > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------- > > > View this message in context: Re: when iterating over a > > > collection how to determine the current objects index > > > <http://forum.world.st/when-iterating-over-a-collection-how-to-determine-the…> > > > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive > > > <http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html> at Nabble.com > > > <http://nabble.com/> . > > > > > > > > > > >

March 10, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] when iterating over a collection how to determine the current objects index

by Thierry Goubier

2015-03-10 14:13 GMT+01:00 Ben Coman <btc(a)openinworld.com>: > > > > >> >> 2015-03-10 13:27 GMT+01:00 Peter UhnÃ¡k <i.uhnak(a)gmail.com>: >> >>> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Joachim Tuchel <jtuchel(a)objektfabrik.de >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> #doWithIndex: ? >>>> >>> >>> doWithIndex: elementAndIndexBlock >>> "Use the new version with consistent naming" >>> ^ self withIndexDo: elementAndIndexBlock >>> >> >> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 8:36 PM, Thierry Goubier < > thierry.goubier(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> And one has to guess that elementAndIndexBlock means >> >> [:each :i | ... ] ? (and of course not [:i :each | ... ] ) >> > > The Principle Of Least Surprise would imply that the variables appear in > the same order that they appear in the method name. Of course that doesn't > mean you don't get surprised sometimes. Are there any that don't follow > that rule? We should consider fixing them. > In Pharo 4. GLMTableColumn>>#modifiedBlock: anObject. I tried to follow the trail and it's a three arguments block, according to GLMTreeMorphNodeModel>>#rowMorphForColumn: , since we see: aGlamourColumn modifiedBlock cull: contentMorph text cull: self item cull: self containerTree glamourPresentation Following senders, I have GLMTablePresentation>>column: aBlockOrString evaluated: aBlock modified: aModifiedBlock, (still no documentation) and: GTObjectVariablesBrowser>>variablesIn: composite where I find: column: 'Value' evaluated: [:assoc | GTObjectPrinter new asTruncatedTextFrom: assoc value ] modified: [:newValue :assoc :presentation | self updateInstanceVariable: assoc key from: presentation entity basedOn: newValue. presentation update ]; Now, I know :) A good experience: use a finder or spotter, search for senders of cull:cull:cull:. I choose the first one I found for the example above (I have a memory of some which were annoying, in Morphic or Spec, but couldn't remember which ones). It would be interesting if something like autocompletion could supply the > template for the block. > Ouch. It would not be easy, but possible. A pragma ? ;) Thierry

March 10, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] when iterating over a collection how to determine the current objects index

by Marcus Denker

> On 10 Mar 2015, at 14:25, Joachim Tuchel <jtuchel(a)objektfabrik.de> wrote: > > Sounds like a bad naming to me. I don't see why withIndexDo is any better. It even contradicts the order of the arguments. And it is Proprietary to Pharo. > No, if you look a the timeStamp it was done in 1997 by Dan. > Joachim > > > Am 10.03.2015 um 13:39 schrieb Sanjay Minni <sm(a)planage.com <mailto:sm@planage.com>>: > >> Yes usually I have to open the code and see, use intuition or write a sample code to find out >> incidentally here I also have to figure out which is the current and which is the deprecated version ... well thats it >> >> sanjay >> >> >> --- >> Sanjay Minni >> +91-9900-902902 >> http://in.linkedin.com/in/sanjayminni <http://in.linkedin.com/in/sanjayminni> >> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Thierry Goubier [via Smalltalk] <[hidden email] <x-msg://6/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=4810945&i=0>> wrote: >> And one has to guess that elementAndIndexBlock means >> >> [:each :i | ... ] ? (and of course not [:i :each | ... ] ) >> >> I'm allways looking for senders with that type of code ;) arguments to blocks are usually not documented. >> >> Thierry >> >> 2015-03-10 13:27 GMT+01:00 Peter UhnÃ¡k <[hidden email] <http://user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=4810931&i=0>>: >> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Joachim Tuchel <[hidden email] <http://user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=4810931&i=1>> wrote: >> #doWithIndex: ? >> >> doWithIndex: elementAndIndexBlock >> "Use the new version with consistent naming" >> ^ self withIndexDo: elementAndIndexBlock >> >> >> >> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below: >> http://forum.world.st/when-iterating-over-a-collection-how-to-determine-the… <http://forum.world.st/when-iterating-over-a-collection-how-to-determine-the…> >> To unsubscribe from when iterating over a collection how to determine the current objects index, click here <applewebdata://B2A91C9C-780D-40B2-9C35-3155BCAFCB80>. >> NAML <http://forum.world.st/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=macro_viewer&id=instan…> >> --- >> Regards, Sanjay >> >> View this message in context: Re: when iterating over a collection how to determine the current objects index <http://forum.world.st/when-iterating-over-a-collection-how-to-determine-the…> >> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive <http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html> at Nabble.com <http://nabble.com/>.

March 10, 2015