> On 6 Nov 2017, at 10:37, Nicolas Cellier <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Because it's a cross dialect library and because contributing in Squeak is so > much easier for me. > > I like the social power provided by github and i know how to use git, at > least as an expert beginner. > But it took me two hours to pick a pharo image, fork and clone the pharo > repository, pick a pharo VM (I ended up building my own), > retrieve my ssh pass phrase to avoid using github thru https, > search documentation of where should I put the image wrt to my cloned git > repository, > search how to use iceberg, > and finally realized that the author/date would not even be preserved if we > want to port this cross dialect library.
You are absolutely right, but it is improving and will get better. > The dark theme upsets me, especially the green on blue, I could have searched > how to change it, but there I stopped. Then switch to the light/white theme, just one setting. > While doing all these things, I did not spent a minute focusing on the > SortFunction subject. > I can see that as an investment, maybe I should have done it before, but it > was too much for a Sunday evening. I think what Denis means is, it would have been helpful to apply the change in Pharo. How you communicate that is less relevant, just saving the MC version and mailing it would already have been very helpful. IMHO. > 2017-11-06 10:13 GMT+01:00 Denis Kudriashov <[email protected]>: > It is difficult to compare to current Pharo version. > Why you not produce Pharo pull request? > > 2017-11-06 0:06 GMT+01:00 Nicolas Cellier > <[email protected]>: > I've put some of the proposed composition features into > > http://source.squeak.org/inbox/Collections-nice.766.mcz > http://source.squeak.org/inbox/CollectionsTests-nice.283.mcz > > http://source.squeak.org/inbox/Collections-nice.766.diff > http://source.squeak.org/inbox/CollectionsTests-nice.283.diff > > SInce it's Squeak based, it uses <=>, but never mind, that's the same > functions. > > > Stephane: the original comments were from Travis Griggs. > It's more a tutorial for using the SortFunction than a detailed explanation > of implementation. > > The original idea is that oSortFunction are composable. > For example, it's possible to chain sorting on a first criterion, then resort > on a second criterion if objects have same rank with first. > > For this, we need a to distinguish when objects have same rank (=) and cannot > use a binary result (Boolean) like legacy sortBlock, > So we rather need a ternary comparison (<=>). > > This thread is about extending composition, and generalizing implementation > by composition (like Xtreams) > - for sorting nil first (or last) > - for reversing the order > - for sorting properties with any collation order, and not just default <=> > > 2017-11-05 17:52 GMT+01:00 Stephane Ducasse <[email protected]>: > Hi guys > > Do you have some nice comments somewhere? because I do not understand > anything about this thread. > I check the code and the comments are well... unclear and confusing. > > Stef > > On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Nicolas Cellier > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > 2017-11-05 16:06 GMT+01:00 Denis Kudriashov <[email protected]>: > >> > >> > >> 2017-11-05 11:33 GMT+01:00 Nicolas Cellier > >> <[email protected]>: > >>> > >>> > >>> Ah, I messed up, UndefinedSorter must not be chained, it must be a > >>> wrapper! > >>> Otherwise comparing to nil will resort to sorting by properties and > >>> fail... > >>> > >>> SortFunction>>undefinedFirst > >>> ^UndefinedSorter descending wrap: self > >>> > >>> UndefinedSorter>> collate: value1 with: value2 > >>> "sort all nil according to the direction (first if -1, last if > >>> +1), then" > >>> value1 ifNil: [value2 ifNil: [^0] ifNotNil: [^direction]]. > >>> value2 ifNil: [^direction negated]. > >>> ^sorterForNonNil collate: value1 with: value2 > >>> > >>> It's important to have the UndefinedSorter : > >>> - decoupled from property sort, because it can be generally usefull > >>> - collating 2 nil as 0, so that another property can be chained > >> > >> > >> I like your idea. > >> It also forced me to think that direction itself should be implemented as > >> wrapper. I would name it InvertedSortFunction: > >> > >> InvertedSortFunction>>collate: value1 with: value2 > >> ^(actualSortFunction collate: value1 with: value2) * -1 > >> > >> > >> If we will do it then direction will be not part of SortFunction. And all > >> current functions will be in fact ascending. > >> And to explicitly reflect this fact I would introduce > >> AscendingSortFunction as their superclass. > >> InvertedSortFunction and ChainedSortFunction will stay subclasses of > >> SortFunction. > >> > >> So what you think? > > > > > > Yes, I was thinking the same. > > On another hand, direction makes thing symmetric and has its elegance too. > > What I don't like with it is that it forces the library to have two > > different messages for the same thing: > > - collate:with: in base class accounting for direction > > - threeWayCompare:with: in every subclass > > > > The fact to hardcode the direction in base class could be seen as an > > optimization too. > > I'm not sure what Sista optimization could bring in this case, because the > > selectors may get megamorphic... > > > > > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> In > >>> > >>> people sortBy: #name ascending undefinedFirst , #age descending > >>> > >>> we could then have people with name nil still sorted by age, what is not > >>> possible with current implementation > >>> > >> > > > > > >
