groupByRuns: looks good to me.
On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Todd Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]> 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 > >
