I feel an APL forcefield growing. Phil
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 02:14 Gabriel Cotelli <[email protected]> wrote: > Looks like Christmas season opened early this year :) > > Jokes aside, I'm in favor of changing some of the characters we use for > binary selectors to allow it to be used in keyword/unary messages. > > I'll include % in that list. For me its more useful as a way to create > percentages ( 5 % ) than to be used as a binary message for keeping an ugly > name from C-like languages. > > - · is middle dot and it's used in some math operations AFAIR > - × is used in math also (it's used as the multiplication sign for > scalars, cross product for vectors and cartesian product for sets) > > One thing that would be really cool is that we can use the full power of > Unicode in methods/class names. Projects like polymath and DSLs can clearly > take advantage of that. Some examples I've just invented, but can be > supported: > > > - > > ∑ from: 1 to: 5 do: [:i | i + i squared ] > - > > 1 ≥ 3 > - > > ∃ anyIn: #( 1 2 4) such: [:x | x isPrime ] > - > > ∅ includes: 1 > > > > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 5:15 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. >> >> >> >>
