> On 11 Sep 2019, at 02:13, Gabriel Cotelli <g.cote...@gmail.com> 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.
Can you explain? Because I thought that % was used and right now it is a binary selector so I would not change it. > · 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) Yes I know. We can let them rot in peace. > 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 :) Why not :) For me the first step is to be able to rescue ? and ! from decay and give us a MUCH better way to convey meaning. Just for the fun look at the method of the BIContext to see what I mean. I’m refactoring the API of the new formatter and it is so frustrating to not being able to express interrogation nicely. > > > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 5:15 PM ducasse <steph...@netcourrier.com > <mailto:steph...@netcourrier.com>> 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. > > >
