On 12 December 2017 at 20:03, Nicolas Cellier < [email protected]> wrote:
> > > 2017-12-12 13:01 GMT+01:00 Henrik Sperre Johansen < > [email protected]>: > >> Ben Coman wrote >> > >> > But after pondering a while for a better name, I wonder what is wrong >> with >> > the existing? >> > Googling "define aggregate" provides... >> > aggregate (noun) = a whole formed by combining several separate >> > elements. >> > aggregate (verb) = form or group into a class or cluster. >> > >> > The separate elements are runs defined by the block. >> > The existing name seems quite precise to me. >> > >> > cheers -ben >> >> When I read aggregateRuns:, I think the opposite; something combining >> different runs into a single entity, not something that splits a single >> collection into constituent runs... >> > okay. I can understand that perspective. > >> Something like (split/collect)runsAccordingTo: sounds more descriptive >> to my >> ears, at least. >> >> Cheers, >> Henry >> >> >> > I like groupBy: but in Squeak groupBy: produces a dictionary with unique > keys ignoring the multiple sequences... > split already carries the meaning of preserving the sequences, but we have > to tell to split at a change of value.... > Run is also quite explicit... > > groupByRuns: / splitRuns: > +1 groupByRuns: is good. cheers -ben
