--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ron Jeffries
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday, December 27, 2004, at 8:00:14 AM, Roberto Lupi wrote:
> > I can write a stream-based implementation using #peek ...
> > I would have to add my own and I don't think that
> > it's worth the effort.
>
> Yes. You need to peek two into the future, and I haven't seen such a
> method either. It would be rather a nifty implementation, though:
Hi, Roberto,
I tried for the Stream implementation for exactly those reasons, and
gave up for exactly those reasons. I found 'peek' but couldn't find
a 'peekAt:' thing.
Ron suggested using a Stack at one point, so one could go Pop, Peek,
Push .... but at this point I felt we had left the bowling domain by
too far.
I'll be happy to see if anyone can get rid of th +1 and +2. It weirds
me out, too.
(p.s. I haven't tried a version where the frames only take the rolls
they need and ask each other for the bonus rolls. I haven't tried
it, but it /feels/ like it'll get too complicated. ... possibly that
means I need to try and find out ...)
>
> self isStrike
> ifTrue: [^stream first + stream peekFirst + stream peekSecond]
>
> with isStrike:
>
> isStrike
> ^stream peekFirst = 10
>
> I think I like it! I'm gonna try that approach. Cool idea.
>
and presumably also (?)
isSpare
^stream peekFirst < 10 and:
[ stream peekFirst + stream peekSecond = 10 ]
Tell us how you feel about that one ....
cheers,
To Post a message, send it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/extremeprogramming/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
