I'm kind of trying to figure out when I'd want that operation. groupsWithSeparatorsWhereSeparatatorsMatch: feels like it says what it does
> On Dec 12, 2017, at 10:19 AM, Ben Coman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 12 December 2017 at 20:03, Nicolas Cellier > <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > 2017-12-12 13:01 GMT+01:00 Henrik Sperre Johansen > <[email protected] <mailto:[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
