For me split methods operate on separators which are not included in the result. So name it splitXXX might not be the best idea. And I think it should be more explicit. When the matching elements are included in the result it needs to indicate where the are added. So it is rather something like
xxxAfter: because the collection is separated after the matching element. What the method does is oppositional to flattenXXX. So if we would have the opposite term of flatten that might be a good candidate. Then it would be something like roughenAfter: :) Ok, stupid name but you got the idea. Norbert > Am 12.12.2017 um 10:50 schrieb Sven Van Caekenberghe <[email protected]>: > > #splitWhile: because the block does not define separators but its value > indicates runs ? > >> On 12 Dec 2017, at 10:34, Thomas Dupriez >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> #(1 2 3 4 1 2 3 5 6 ) splitWhen: [ :each | each = 4] >> >> >> Le 12/12/2017 à 10:23, Pavel Krivanek a écrit : >>> Hi, >>> >>> do you have some proposals for a better name for the message named >>> #aggregateRuns? >>> >>> (#(1 2 3 4 1 2 3 5 6 ) aggregateRuns: [ :each | each = 4]) >>>>>> #(#(1 2 3) #(4) #(1 2 3 5 6)). >>> >>> (#(1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 ) aggregateRuns: [ :each | each = 4]) >>>>>> #(#(1 2 3) #(4) #(1 2 3) #(4) #(5 6)). >>> >>> ((1 to: 12) aggregateRuns: [ :each | (each \\ 3) = 0]) >>>>>> #(#(1 2) #(3) #(4 5) #(6) #(7 8) #(9) #(10 11) #(12)). >>> >>> The current comment is: >>> "Answer a new collection of the same species as the >>> receiver with elements being collections (of the receiver >>> species) containing those elements of the receiver >>> for which the given block consecutively evaluates to >>> the same object." >>> >>> https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/20864/add-examples-to-SequenceableCollection-aggregateRuns >>> >>> Cheers, >>> -- Pavel >> >>
