Would use of ? and ! in unary/keyword selectors be convention or somehow
required? If simply convention, then we should start with renaming testing
methods to be named is* or has*.
flag1 := anInteger even. “not good"
flag2 := anInteger isEven. “better"
flag3 := anInteger even?. “how much better?”
flag4 := #(1 2 3) includes?: 2. “how much better?"
I’m not convinced that having another way to indicate a testing method will
help if people still don’t name methods well.
Also, can you give an example of where ! would clarify the meaning? Are you
thinking of the following:
myPoint x!: 3.
myArray at: 1 put!: nil.
Those don’t seem to be much improved!
I’m not arguing for “compatibility" or "staying in the past." I’m just trying
to understand the benefit.
Thanks,
James
> On Sep 10, 2019, at 1:14 PM, ducasse <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I would love to retract ? and ! from the list of binary selectors.
> I’m super super frustrated that predicates cannot be easily identifiable.
>
> for example is
> lineUpBlockBrackets an action or a testing method.
>
> I think that we are trapped in mistakes from the past.
> In racket and scheme and I guess ruby too we can use ? in the method and
> this change the game.
>
> self lineUpBlockBrackets?
>
> We have plenty of binary selector parts that are not used and think that
> it is frustrating.
>
> Let us check:
>
> Character specialCharacters
>
> '+-/\*~<>=@,%|&?!·÷±×'
>
> +
> -
> /
> \
> ~
> <
>>
> =
> @
> ,
> &
> |
> %
>
> those are ok
>
> I have no idea what is · nor how to type it.
> ÷ looks from the past.
> ± so funny
> × no idea what it is and….
>
> Then we have two that could really improve our language
> ? and !
>
> Do not tell me that there is a value in these selectors?
>
>
> (#(#+ #- #/ #\ #* #~ #< #> #= #@ #, #% #| #& #? #!) combinations
> select: [ :each | each size = 3 and: [ each includesAnyOf: #(#? #!) ]
> ]) collect: [ :each | each first, each second, each third ]
>
> #(#'+-?' #'+-!' #'+/?' #'+/!' #'+\?' #'+\!' #'+*?' #'+*!' #'+~?' #'+~!'
> #'+<?' #'+<!' #'+>?' #'+>!' #'+=?' #'+=!' #'+@?' #'+@!' #'+,?' #'+,!' #'+%?'
> #'+%!' #'+|?' #'+|!' #'+&?' #'+&!' #'+?!' #'-/?' #'-/!' #'-\?' #'-\!' #'-*?'
> #'-*!' #'-~?' #'-~!' #'-<?' #'-<!' #'->?' #'->!' #'-=?' #'-=!' #'-@?' #'-@!'
> #'-,?' #'-,!' #'-%?' #'-%!' #'-|?' #'-|!' #'-&?' #'-&!' #'-?!' #'/\?' #'/\!'
> #'/*?' #'/*!' #'/~?' #'/~!' #'/<?' #'/<!' #'/>?' #'/>!' #'/=?' #'/=!' #'/@?'
> #'/@!' #'/,?' #'/,!' #'/%?' #'/%!' #'/|?' #'/|!' #'/&?' #'/&!' #'/?!' #'\*?'
> #'\*!' #'\~?' #'\~!' #'\<?' #'\<!' #'\>?' #'\>!' #'\=?' #'\=!' #'\@?' #'\@!'
> #'\,?' #'\,!' #'\%?' #'\%!' #'\|?' #'\|!' #'\&?' #'\&!' #'\?!' #'*~?' #'*~!'
> #'*<?' #'*<!' #'*>?' #'*>!' #'*=?' #'*=!' #'*@?' #'*@!' #'*,?' #'*,!' #'*%?'
> #'*%!' #'*|?' #'*|!' #'*&?' #'*&!' #'*?!' #'~<?' #'~<!' #'~>?' #'~>!' #'~=?'
> #'~=!' #'~@?' #'~@!' #'~,?' #'~,!' #'~%?' #'~%!' #'~|?' #'~|!' #'~&?' #'~&!'
> #'~?!' #'<>?' #'<>!' #'<=?' #'<=!' #'<@?' #'<@!' #'<,?' #'<,!' #'<%?' #'<%!'
> #'<|?' #'<|!' #'<&?' #'<&!' #'<?!' #'>=?' #'>=!' #'>@?' #'>@!' #'>,?' #'>,!'
> #'>%?' #'>%!' #'>|?' #'>|!' #'>&?' #'>&!' #'>?!' #'=@?' #'=@!' #'=,?' #'=,!'
> #'=%?' #'=%!' #'=|?' #'=|!' #'=&?' #'=&!' #'=?!' #'@,?' #'@,!' #'@%?' #'@%!'
> #'@|?' #'@|!' #'@&?' #'@&!' #'@?!' #',%?' #',%!' #',|?' #',|!' #',&?' #',&!'
> #',?!' #'%|?' #'%|!' #'%&?' #'%&!' #'%?!' #'|&?' #'|&!' #'|?!' #'&?!’)
>
> may be this one #&?! is useful for WTF!
>
> And because of that we sacrifice having nice method names!
> I really think that we should change that.
>
> S.
>
>
>
>
