NO
> On 20 Dec 2015, at 14:32, Tudor Girba <tu...@tudorgirba.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> On Dec 20, 2015, at 2:30 PM, Max Leske <maxle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 20 Dec 2015, at 14:10, Tudor Girba <tu...@tudorgirba.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Could we not have sum, but sumNumbers instead? So, we would end up with:
>>>
>>> sum:ifEmpty:
>>> sum: (with error)
>>> sumNumbers (without error)
>>>
>>> From the outside, #sum: looks like it should parameterize #sum, but the
>>> implementation is actually different. So, given that in this implementation
>>> #sum is not a special case of #sum: the two should be named differently to
>>> reflect that difference. Hence my proposal is to keep #sumNumbers instead
>>> of #sum.
>>
>> I could live with that. We would sacrifice the beautiful selector #sum for
>> the more intention revealing #sumNumbers. I think that makes sense.
>>
>> Concerning the #min and #max methods that means we’d end up with e.g.
>> #minNumbers, #min: and #min:ifEmpty: etc.
>
> Yes.
>
> Doru
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Doru
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Dec 20, 2015, at 1:47 PM, Max Leske <maxle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 20 Dec 2015, at 13:43, Gabriel Cotelli <g.cote...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Max,
>>>>>
>>>>> sum: aBlock ifEmpty: emptyBlock needs to obtain the sample evaluating the
>>>>> block.
>>>>>
>>>>> sum: aBlock ifEmpty: emptyBlock
>>>>> | sum sample |
>>>>> self isEmpty ifTrue: [ ^ emptyBlock value ].
>>>>> sample := aBlock value: self anyOne.
>>>>> sum := self
>>>>> inject: sample
>>>>> into: [ :accum :each | accum + (aBlock value: each) ].
>>>>> ^ sum - sample
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks! Missed that.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 8:59 AM, Max Leske <maxle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I would like to wrap up this discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 05 Dec 2015, at 18:14, stepharo <steph...@free.fr> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So what is the conclusion?
>>>>>> I like the idea of Esteban M to have iterator because it moves some
>>>>>> behavior out of core classes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [[[
>>>>>>
>>>>>> aCollection arithmetic sum: [...] or.... aCollection
>>>>>> arithmetic avg.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ]]]
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> While I think that iterators are an intriguing idea I also believe that
>>>>> they are beyond the scope of this issue. If anybody wants to follow up on
>>>>> iterators (or unit types for that matter) please start a new thread /
>>>>> issue.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I propose to use Sven’s version for #sum:ifEmpty:. The result would be
>>>>> these three methods:
>>>>>
>>>>> sum
>>>>> ^ self
>>>>> sum: [ :each | each ]
>>>>> ifEmpty: [ 0 ]
>>>>>
>>>>> sum: aBlock
>>>>> ^ self
>>>>> sum: aBlock
>>>>> ifEmpty: [ self errorEmptyCollection ]
>>>>>
>>>>> sum: aBlock ifEmpty: emptyBlock
>>>>> | sum sample |
>>>>> self isEmpty ifTrue: [ ^ emptyBlock value ].
>>>>> sample := self anyOne.
>>>>> sum := self
>>>>> inject: sample
>>>>> into: [ :accum :each | accum + (aBlock value: each) ].
>>>>> ^ sum - sample
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I’ve attached a couple of benchmark results below. To me they show that
>>>>> 1. the new implementation is maybe a tiny bit slower but insignificantly
>>>>> so (if you’re going for performance you’ll probably write your own
>>>>> optimised version anyway)
>>>>> 2. there is no need to duplicate the code (like #sum and #sum: currently
>>>>> do). It’s perfectly fine to delegate to #sum:ifEmpty:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In addition to the above changes I would like to remove #detectSum: (->
>>>>> #sum:) and #sumNumbers (-> #sum).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that once we agree on changing this API, we will need to also change
>>>>> #detectMin:, #detectMax:, #min, #max as well as all overrides (e.g.
>>>>> RunArray, Interval) of these and of #sum et. al. to stay consistent. The
>>>>> changes would of course be in line with this change, such that every
>>>>> operation has a unary selector with a sensible default, one that takes a
>>>>> block and throws an error for empty collections and a third that takes a
>>>>> block for the iteration and one for the empty case.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Please cast your vote for these changes:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Do you agree to changing #sum and #sum: in the suggested way?
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Do you agree to the removal of #detectSum:?
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. Do you agree to the removal of #sumNumbers?
>>>>>
>>>>> 4. Do you agree that the #max and #min selectors also need to be adapted?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for you help.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Max
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Benchmarks
>>>>> ============
>>>>> (Note that these aren’t very good benchmarks. There’s quite some
>>>>> variation on each run.)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Machine:
>>>>> MacBook Pro (15-inch, Early 2011)
>>>>> CPU: 2.2 GHz Intel Core i7
>>>>> Memory: 8 GB 1333 MHz DDR3
>>>>> Disk: APPLE SSD TS512C (500 GB)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Benchmarks of the current versions:
>>>>>
>>>>> [ (1 to: 1000000) asArray sum ] benchFor: 10 seconds.
>>>>> 75 iterations, 7.470 per second
>>>>>
>>>>> [ (1 to: 1000000) asArray sum: [ :e | e ] ] benchFor: 10 seconds.
>>>>> 72 iterations, 7.128 per second
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [ (1 to: 100) asArray sum ] benchFor: 10 seconds.
>>>>> 1,189,477 iterations, 118,912 per second
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [ (1 to: 100) asArray sum: [ :e | e ] ] benchFor: 10 seconds.
>>>>> 1,171,467 iterations, 117,112 per second
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Benchmarks of the new versions:
>>>>>
>>>>> [ (1 to: 1000000) asArray sum ] benchFor: 10 seconds.
>>>>> 73 iterations, 7.244 per second
>>>>>
>>>>> [ (1 to: 1000000) asArray sum: [ :e | e ] ] benchFor: 10 seconds.
>>>>> 75 iterations, 7.480 per second
>>>>>
>>>>> [ (1 to: 1000000) asArray sum: [ :e | e ] ifEmpty: [ 0 ] ] benchFor: 10
>>>>> seconds.
>>>>> 72 iterations, 7.141 per second
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [ (1 to: 100) asArray sum ] benchFor: 10 seconds.
>>>>> 1,115,827 iterations, 111,560 per second
>>>>>
>>>>> [ (1 to: 100) asArray sum: [ :e | e ] ] benchFor: 10 seconds.
>>>>> 1,154,595 iterations, 115,425 per second
>>>>>
>>>>> [ (1 to: 100) asArray sum: [ :e | e ] ifEmpty: [ 0 ] ] benchFor: 10
>>>>> seconds.
>>>>> 1,102,358 iterations, 110,203 per second
>>>
>>> --
>>> www.tudorgirba.com
>>> www.feenk.com
>>>
>>> "There are no old things, there are only old ways of looking at them."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> www.tudorgirba.com
> www.feenk.com
>
> "If you can't say why something is relevant,
> it probably isn't."
