Hi Rony,
Missatge de Rony G. Flatscher <rony.flatsc...@wu.ac.at> del dia dl., 10 de
març 2025 a les 17:44:
> Hi Josep Maria,
> On 09.03.2025 14:40, Josep Maria Blasco wrote:
>
> Missatge de Rony G. Flatscher <rony.flatsc...@wu.ac.at> del dia dg., 9 de
> març 2025 a les 14:04:
> (cut)
>
>> 1a) In order to create an ooRexx array from a stem array the following
>>> method should be added to the stem class:
>>>
>>> makeArrayFromStemArray
>>>
>>> This name makes it clear that a stem array is to be processed and that
>>> the resulting array should not have the stem value with the tail 0.
>>> (The existting stem method makeArray continues to create an array that
>>> represents all tails of a stem, including a tail with the value 0.)
>>>
>> I'm not sure that using "makeXXX" for the message names is a good idea,
>> because the request method of the Object class uses the "make" pattern for
>> class conversions.
>>
>> Yes, that is the reason why using that name.
>>
>
> Ah, but a class called "ArrayFromStemArray" does not exist, and that
> breaks the "make" semantics. Rexxref 5.4.1.18 "request"
> says "Any conversion method *must return an object of the requested class*.
> For example, makeArray must return an array" (emphasis mine). But, since
> there is no such thing as an ArrayFromStemArray class, this could be
> misleading.
>
> Yes. The conversion method must start with "make" and be followed by the
> classid (a string) supplied as argument to the .Object's request method.
>
> This protocol could be used for creating an array from a stem (by
> implementing a method "make" || supplied_classId_as_arg, however, there is
> already a makearray method defined for stem. Hence the first idea to add
> the variant to the name of the conversion method yielding
> "makeArrayFromStemArray". The reason being that .Object's request method
> does only accept the classid argument and by using another name that
> includes the intent ("fromStemArray") one could add another make conversion
> method to the stem class. However, I concur that a) the name becomes too
> long and b) probably "classid" should be an existing classid. :) Then it
> becomes possibel to change the name of the method tonot start with "make"
> hence not adhering to the request protocol.
>
Exactly!
> In the meantime Gil's idea seems to be interesting.
>
I like it too. Very elegant, simple and easy to remember.
Josep Maria
> ---rony
>
> _______________________________________________
> Oorexx-devel mailing list
> Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
>
_______________________________________________
Oorexx-devel mailing list
Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
