- Pharo-users - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-users] uses or instead of a searching literal

by tbrunz

Since you're splitting a String, why not use a Regex to do this? -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html

Dec. 27, 2019

uses or instead of a searching literal

by Roelof Wobben

Dec. 27, 2019

Re: [Pharo-users] can I write this without the three if then;s

by tbrunz

You could also accomplish this with a simple 'do:' construct by creating the associations with the the ring limits & points "staggered" (by one level), so that when (each < key) you can return the 'current' association value... Which, now that I'm looking closely at your solution, Kasper, seems to be what you already proposed... Either should work. -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html

Dec. 27, 2019

Re: [Pharo-users] can I write this without the three if then;s

by tbrunz

Doing it the way I describe above eliminates repetitive if-then statements ('switch' or 'case' statements in other languages, which make for a maintenance mess), automatically extends for additional rings, doesn't embed "magic numbers" for defined rings within the decision logic, and takes advantage of the naturally recursive nature of this kind of graduated comparison test. -t -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html

Dec. 27, 2019

Re: [Pharo-users] can I write this without the three if then;s

by tbrunz

I would probably set up an array of associations whose keys are the boundary limits and whose values are the target values (ordered, in this example, from outer to inner). Then loop over the array's associations using inject:into:, testing for the point where (each < key), at which point you return the previous association's value. -t -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html

Dec. 27, 2019

Re: [Pharo-users] can I write this without the three if then;s

by Roelof Wobben

Dec. 27, 2019

Re: [Pharo-users] can I write this without the three if then;s

by Kasper Ãsterbye

Hi First, I think your code is readable and easy to understand. I think the problem does not lend itself too much towards having âan object oriented solutionâ, as such. If you are looking for a one-liner using smalltalk libraries, you could do: ({10 -> 0. 5 -> 1. 1 -> 5. 0 -> 10} detect: [ :dist | dist key < distance ]) value but I really think your code is easier to read, which is what I appreciate the most. Best, Kasper On 27 December 2019 at 20.18.38, Roelof Wobben via Pharo-users ( pharo-users(a)lists.pharo.org) wrote: Hello, Im trying to solve a challenge from exercism where I have to calculate the points somehow gets on a very simple darts board. I solved it like this : scoreX: anInteger y: anInteger2 | distance | distance := (anInteger squared + anInteger2 squared) sqrt. distance > 10 ifTrue: [ ^ 0 ]. distance > 5 ifTrue: [ ^ 1 ]. distance > 1 ifTrue: [ ^ 5 ]. ^ 10 but now I use three if then and I think it's ugly code. Is there a way I can make it more the smalltalk way ? Regards, Roelof

Dec. 27, 2019

Re: [Pharo-users] can I write this without the three if then;s

by tbrunz

You might try Magnitude >> between: min and: max -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html

Dec. 27, 2019

Re: [Pharo-users] can I write this without the three if then;s

by Roelof Wobben

Thanks, But it looks to me I still need the ifTrue because the between gives also a true or false. Roelof Op 27-12-2019 om 20:38 schreef tbrunz: > You might try Magnitude >> between: min and: max > > > > > -- > Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html > >

Dec. 27, 2019

can I write this without the three if then;s

by Roelof Wobben

Dec. 27, 2019