On 19 Jun 2014, at 15:47, Tudor Girba <tu...@tudorgirba.com> wrote: > In other engines where we want scripting to be used, we use a cull: or value: > with a prefix. In the case of Spec, this could be specCull:cull:. This could > be used as an extension of Symbol without spawning religious wars :).
Yes, also I can use a block with 1 param. The thing is that as far as I understand cull:cull: means: if possible: “value:value:” else if possible: “value:” else “value” So this can work for block. But maybe cull: has different philosophy Uko > > The funny thing is that in all these engines that do define special value: > like methods, the implementation looks exactly the same. Perhaps this should > tell us that it would be worth having it by default. > > Doru > > > On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymc...@me.com> wrote: > The thing is that cull:cull: can be used on block with 1 parameter. If you > consider symbol as a block with one parameter then it will work in the same > style. > > In other words: methods that use value:value: want to ensure that they are > working with 2 param block. Methods that use cull:cull: don’t care what is > there, but allow you to customise the result with up to 2 parameters. With > symbol you can customise it with 1 parameter. > > Uko > > On 19 Jun 2014, at 14:08, Henrik Johansen <henrik.s.johan...@veloxit.no> > wrote: > > > > > On 19 Jun 2014, at 1:42 , Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymc...@me.com> wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> maybe we should implement #cull:cull: in symbol so that it will call > >> #cull:? Because this looks correct, if block has 1 parameter, then > >> #cull:cull: boils down to #value:, but when we have a symbol instead, we > >> have an exception. > >> > >> I can open an issue and implement that stuff, but I want a feedback from > >> the conceptual point of view. > >> > >> Uko > >> > > > > #cull: is supposed to be the equivalent to the #value: protocol, where the > > parameter is optional. > > > > Symbol has no #value:value: message, hence it should have no #cull:cull: > > either. > > > > You could argue it should implement both, with value:value: polymorphic to > > the block > > [:a :b | a perform: theSymbol with: b ]. > > > > but cull:cull: would then mean equivalence to: > > for #+ [:a :b | a + b] > > for #squared [:a | a self] > > > > And I don’t see how that’d be intuitive/useful enough to warrant inclusion > > > > Considering the sole reason cull: on Symbol exists, is to allow select: > > etc. to be written using cull so the block arg is optional, but still do > > aCollection collect: #mySymbol, the closest equivalent would be . > > aCollection sort: #> / aCollection inject: 0 into: #+ > > which, while might be nice, both have no use for cull:cull: in the same > > manner: > > aCollection inject: 0 into: #squared -> [:sub :next | sub squared] ??? > > > > The whole "who is the receiver, what’s going on»-factor of cull:cull: on > > symbol is non-intuitive enough that at least I feel it’s better to write > > out the block explicitly. > > > > Cheers, > > Henry > > > > > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > > "Every thing has its own flow"
