> On 01 Dec 2015, at 15:11, Tudor Girba <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > >> On Dec 1, 2015, at 12:52 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>> On 01 Dec 2015, at 12:45, Stephan Eggermont <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On 01-12-15 11:46, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: >>>> The basic question for me is, what should >>>> >>>> #() sum >>>> >>>> return. Right now, it is an error, I would very much like that for this >>>> common case the result would be 0. There is a lot of power (easy of use) >>>> in a unary selector, we should not destroy that with semantics that force >>>> a test before using it. >>> >>> I like the error, it aligns with most of our collection protocol. >> >> I hate the error, a lot ;-) >> >>> It shows the need for #sum:ifEmpty: though >> >> Yes, as long as #() sum == 0 > > That won’t work :).
But wouldn’t it be nice to have #sum:ifEmpty:? I think that this is a nice way to describe summing. Otherwise I have to do ifEmpty: [ something ] ifNotEmpty: [ :col | col sum: … ] Cheers. Uko > >> I want the simplest case to be simple, having a non-0 default is a special >> case IMHO > > That is why you have sumNumbers:. We could also add Collection>>sumNumbers. > > We had this discussion at length before Pharo 4, and this is when we agreed > to add sumNumbers: and let sum: be generic (like the name says it should be) > and not assume that it should work with Numbers. > > Cheers, > Doru > >> >>> Stephan >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > > "Speaking louder won't make the point worthier." > >
