I agree with Pablo, #cr and #lf should not be clever and just be names for
the carriage return and linefeed characters/codepoints.
Making #newLine's behavior dependent on the current platform disturbs me,
though. I'd rather have:
Stream >> newLineFor: platform
self nextPutAll: platform lineEnding
Stream >> newLineForCurrentPlatform
self newLineFor: OSPlatform current
Stream >> newLineForWindows "convenience for the most common platforms
Stream >> newLineForUnix
Stream >> newLineForHistoricReasons
Stream >> newLine
"delegates to one of the above, I'd argue for unix for convenience, but
windows is the technically correct combination of cr + lf, and cr only is
the historic one"
On 4 August 2017 at 14:25, teso...@gmail.com <teso...@gmail.com> wrote:
> To me it is clear that cr and lf should be in streams. But they should put
> the 'cr' or 'lf' character only. And of course the platform independent
> newline should be also.
>
> The first (cr, lf) should be used by the code wanting to have absolute
> control of what is in the stream. The later (newline) when you just want a
> new line.
>
> The two have completely different behaviour, ones are really low level,
> the other is higher level.
>
> On 4 Aug 2017 14:20, "Esteban Lorenzano" <esteba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> > On 4 Aug 2017, at 14:06, Stephane Ducasse <stepharo.s...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Well. This is not implemented like that in Pharo.
>> >
>> > cr is bad because it does not mean that it is independent of the
>> platform.
>> > So cr can be redefined as newLine and keep but not used inside the
>> system.
>>
>> sometimes you actually want to write a cr (or a lf). So it needs to
>> remain in the system, of course.
>> now, including #newLine can be cool (most of the times you want the
>> “platform compatible” new line). Also I would consider including #nl,
>> abbreviated… just for convenience :P
>>
>> Esteban
>>
>> >
>> > Stef
>> >
>> > On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Jan Vrany <jan.vr...@fit.cvut.cz>
>> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 2017-08-04 at 12:03 +0200, Stephane Ducasse wrote:
>> >>> Hi guys
>> >>>
>> >>> While writing pillar code, I ended up using "stream cr" and it
>> >>> worries
>> >>> me to still expand usage
>> >>> of a pattern I would like to remove.
>> >>>
>> >>> Let us imagine that we would like to prepare the migration from cr.
>> >>> I was thinking that we could replace cr invocation by newLine so that
>> >>> after newLine
>> >>> could be redefined as
>> >>>
>> >>> Stream >> newLine
>> >>> self nextPutAll: OSPlatform current lineEnding
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> what do you think about this approach?
>> >>
>> >> Why not? But please keep #cr.
>> >>
>> >> Section 5.9.4.1 of ANSI reads:
>> >>
>> >> Message: cr
>> >>
>> >> Synopsis
>> >> Writes an end-of-line sequence to the receiver.
>> >>
>> >> Definition: <puttableStream>
>> >> A sequence of character objects that constitute the implementation-
>> >> defined end-of-line sequence is added to the receiver in the same
>> >> manner as if the message #nextPutAll: was sent to the receiver with
>> >> an argument string whose elements are the sequence of characters.
>> >>
>> >> Return Value
>> >> UNSPECIFIED
>> >> Errors
>> >> It is erroneous if any element of the end-of-line sequence is an
>> >> object that does not conform to the receiver's sequence value type .
>> >>
>> >> my 2c,
>> >>
>> >> Jan
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> Stef
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
--
Damien Pollet
type less, do more [ | ] http://people.untyped.org/damien.pollet
