2010/8/19 Göran Krampe <[email protected]>
> On 08/19/2010 09:53 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>
>> What would you say the right thing is?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, intuitively I would say that converting an Array of Character
>>>> instances (say 5 instances) using "asString" would give me a String of size
>>>> 5. Also, "Character space asString" does NOT give me 'Character space' but
>>>> actually ' '.
>>>>
>>> Maybe its just me, but I'd rather not have
>>> SequenceableCollection>> asString mean "If I contain only elements which
>>> may represent characters, return a string containing those, if not, return
>>> my printString"
>>>
>>
>>
>> yes you are not the only one. Thanks I was thinking about that after my
>> post :)
>>
>> Having a fallback on printString is of course fine, in Object. But...
>>>> well, I haven't thought *deeply* on this, but a sequencable collection of
>>>> Characters should IMHO be able to produce a String
>>>> regards, Göran
>>>>
>>>
>>> And it is, using either
>>> collection as: String, or
>>> String withAll: collection
>>> In both cases you then explicitly specify that this collection will
>>> contain only elements which can be converted to a string, rather than have a
>>> later reader of the code have to question "hmmm, does the use of asString
>>> here mean he'll be using the collections printString, or the string with its
>>> elements?"
>>>
>>
>> I'm curious about the senders of asString, especially to collection.
>>
>> Stef
>>
>
> I am all in agreement I think, my gut reaction was that, darn, something is
> broken. But perhaps sending asString to a Collection of objects should...
> well, what *should* it return?
>
> I think possibly one of the problems in all this is the fallback on
> printString - that has clearly muddled the waters IMHO. #printString is for
> the tools, it should give a "readable representation". But #asString is a
> conversion method - it should give me IMHO the most reasonable conversion
> for further "use".
>
> I agree that #as: etc might be a "better" protocol, but let's say we still
> want #asString to work for Collections and NOT fall back on #printString -
> then what should it do?
>
If aCollection asArray = (aCollection as: Array) then surely aCollection
asString = (aCollection as: String)
If ([aCollection as: String. nil] on: Error do: [:ex| ex]) notNil then
surely
([aCollection as: String. nil] on: Error do: [:ex| ex messageText])
= ([aCollection asString. nil] on: Error do: [:ex| ex messageText])
i.e. if aCollection doesn't include characters both forms should return
errors.
I find the Object implementation of asString distasteful, but that's juts my
taste. However, I find Collection's inheriting of that definition badly
broken.
my 2¢
best
Eliot
> regards, Göran
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>
_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
