Thanks Sven
I thought that suddenly I was an idiot.
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 11:47 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <s...@stfx.eu> wrote:
>
>
>> On 22 Feb 2018, at 10:41, Clément Bera <bera.clem...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 7:52 AM, Stephane Ducasse <stepharo.s...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> Clement
>>
>> can you open a bug entry so that we clean this situation?
>>
>>
>> What is the bug?
>
> Having two selectors doing the same thing is bad and confuses everybody. So
> that is a 'bug'.
>
>> You want to merge the two selectors and break compatibility with frameworks
>> using the removed one?
>
> Either we keep on adding cruft (or leaving cruft in place) in the sake of
> backwards compatibility or be do something about it. It is not hard to fix a
> couple of senders. It could be done more softly with a deprecation.
>
> Cleanups at the level of Object are particularly valuable.
>
>> Stef
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 12:43 PM, Clément Bera <bera.clem...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > It seems the two methods have exactly the same behavior indeed.
>> > valueWithPossibleArgs: anArray
>> > valueWithEnoughArguments: anArray
>> >
>> > One was edited recently but I think it's only to change the comment,
>> > they're
>> > both very old. My guess is that there are two for compatibility purpose
>> > (One
>> > is the selector that is considered as the most relevant that should be
>> > used,
>> > the other one is the one also present in other Smalltalks so we have it for
>> > cross-Smalltalk librairies or something like that), but only one is really
>> > needed. If you need only the concept for SOM-NS you can just implement one,
>> > if you want to be compatible with different Smalltalk lib implement both.
>> >
>> > All use-cases of these methods I have found do not inject nils, they expect
>> > the block to have a number of arguments of the block less or equal to the
>> > number of parameters in the argument array. I would say they're used as
>> > #cullWithArguments: but for some reason other selector names were
>> > preferred.
>> >
>> > Now, as you mentioned, these two methods are more than just
>> > cullWithArguments: since they inject nils if there are not enough
>> > parameters. To me it looks incorrect to do so because then while debugging
>> > your code you will get issues due to those injected nils and it will be
>> > tedious for the application programmer to track the problem down to these
>> > two methods.
>> >
>> > There a few use-cases for nil injection though. Typically when changing
>> > existing frameworks in multiple repositories, it may be that during the
>> > update process the change to the caller is installed before the change of
>> > the callee, and if the code is actually used (code in UI for instance),
>> > injecting nils might avoid system break-down. Another use-case is for
>> > compatibility with frameworks using the nil injection, but I can't find a
>> > framework doing that right now.
>> >
>> > Honestly, I would not implement the nil injection, but maybe some one else
>> > has a different point of view.
>> >
>> > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 6:25 PM, Stefan Marr <smallt...@stefan-marr.de>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi:
>> >>
>> >> I am trying to understand the different between and perhaps origin of
>> >> BlockClosure>>#valueWithPossibleArgs: and
>> >> BlockClosure>>#valueWithEnoughArguments:
>> >>
>> >> I am trying to decide which of the two I need for SOMns.
>> >>
>> >> The first one has seen more recent changes, when looking at the Pharo 6.1
>> >> download:
>> >>
>> >> valueWithPossibleArgs: anArray —> 2/12/2017 StephaneDucasse
>> >> valueWithEnoughArguments: anArray —> 3/11/2001 nk
>> >>
>> >> While they have rather different implementations, they seem to behave
>> >> identically, as far as I could tell using the following example:
>> >>
>> >> blocks := {
>> >> [ { } ].
>> >> [:a | { a } ].
>> >> [:a :b | { a. b } ].
>> >> [:a :b :c | { a. b. c } ]
>> >> }.
>> >>
>> >> blocks collect: [:b | b valueWithPossibleArgs: {1}].
>> >> blocks collect: [:b | b valueWithPossibleArgs: {1. 2. 3}].
>> >> blocks collect: [:b | b valueWithEnoughArguments: {1}].
>> >> blocks collect: [:b | b valueWithEnoughArguments: {1. 2. 3}].
>> >>
>> >> I was also wondering how they relate to #cull:*
>> >>
>> >> One of the major differences seems to be that valueWithP* and valueWithE*
>> >> are both injecting nil for absent arguments, while normal #value* and
>> >> #cull*
>> >> methods signal an error.
>> >> Is there a specific use case why one wouldn’t want to be strict here as
>> >> well, but instead inject nils?
>> >>
>> >> Any comments or pointer appreciated.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks
>> >> Stefan
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Stefan Marr
>> >> School of Computing, University of Kent
>> >> http://stefan-marr.de/research/
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Clément Béra
>> > Pharo consortium engineer
>> > https://clementbera.wordpress.com/
>> > Bâtiment B 40, avenue Halley 59650 Villeneuve d'Ascq
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Clément Béra
>> Pharo consortium engineer
>> https://clementbera.wordpress.com/
>> Bâtiment B 40, avenue Halley 59650 Villeneuve d'Ascq
>
>
