> On 5 Aug 2017, at 11:06, Alistair Grant <akgrant0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 10:49:02AM +0200, Esteban Lorenzano wrote:
>> I think there is a consensus we need to keep #cr and #lf as intended,
>> yet to add some kind of #newLine (which btw is different to EOL :P)
>> vocabulary, isn???t?
>> 
>> In this, I favour Peter approach for define line ending convention
>> (the way #newLine will work)??? and of course by default it should use
>> the one from the current platform. 
>> 
>> anything agains this approach?
>> 
>> Esteban
> 
> +1
> 
> I prefer #nl to #newLine, but admit that it is a subjective preference
> and that descriptive names are generally better.

heh, me too… but is a bit cryptic.

> 
> Cheers,
> Alistair
> 
> 
>>> On 4 Aug 2017, at 23:48, Tudor Girba <tu...@tudorgirba.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> +1.
>>> 
>>> We need a basic representation of those characters. Logical ones should be 
>>> derived from the simple ones.
>>> 
>>> Doru
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Aug 4, 2017, at 3:44 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <esteba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On 4 Aug 2017, at 15:41, Damien Pollet <damien.pol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> I agree with Pablo, #cr and #lf should not be clever and just be names 
>>>>> for the carriage return and linefeed characters/codepoints.
>>>> 
>>>> +1
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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
> 


Reply via email to