Fully agree on proper names. === I don’t know if this is because of free confinement time but I can keep on asking questions so I share some I hope will make sense (for the sake of discussion).
For instance, I'm wondering if tests on conditions so as to raise proper exceptions is a good practice (for instance if the width object does not make sense, like a float) #doesNotMakeSense btw would be a cool name for the « maybe » cases Richard was talking. Then I asked myself what are the drawbacks (especially on performance) on adding extra information to source code (a bit like longer variable names) ? There is the raw code and the sources code file that helps separating concerns. At least we don’t mind at all having longer literals (variables names, …). I cannot help is what about pragmas. I kind see roughly how they work. But is it possible to distinguish between runtime / source only pragmas (not sure I’m clear here but it seems to me that some are important for documentation purposes that are not needed at runtime) ? Also, I’ve never really liked method categories. I don’t really see how there are implemented but they don’t feel nice to me. Could they be only pragmas ? Happy eater Sunday, stay all preserved (sad day for the game of life), Cédrick > Le 12 avr. 2020 à 14:22, Sven Van Caekenberghe <s...@stfx.eu> a écrit : > > > >> On 12 Apr 2020, at 13:53, Cédrick Béler <cdric...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Beautiful ^^ > > I also like it. > > But why the single letter variable names ? Why not: > > SequenceableCollection>>#runningMeans: width > | means sum index | > means := Array new: self size - width + 1. > sum := 0. > 1 to: width do: [ :each | > sum := sum + (self at: each) ]. > index := 1. > means at: index put: sum / width. > width + 1 to: self size do: [ :each | > sum := sum - (self at: index) + (self at: each). > index := index + 1. > means at: index put: sum / width ]. > ^ means > > A good comment, a correct initial bounds check and unit tests are also needed. > >> I would vote for inclusion in the base image ? >> With your explanation as comments. >> >> I’ll play with it. >> >> Thanks >> Cedrick >> >>> Le 12 avr. 2020 à 12:19, Richard O'Keefe <rao...@gmail.com> a écrit : >>> >>> >>> I have coded and benchmarked 8 different running mean algorithms. >>> In the presence of inexact numbers it is not as accurate as >>> redoing the sums, but it's pretty close, and it's fast. >>> If "width" is not an integer or is out of range, an error >>> will be reported by #new: or #at:[put:]. It's based on Welford's >>> stable update. >>> >>> Of course this approach does NOT work for trimmed or Winsorised >>> means or for medians or any kind of robust estimate of location. >>> >>> SequenceableCollection >>> methods for: 'summarising' >>> runningMeans: width >>> |a m d| >>> a := Array new: self size - width + 1. >>> m := 0. >>> 1 to: width do: [:i | >>> m := (self at: i) + m]. >>> m := m / width. >>> d := 1. >>> a at: d put: m. >>> width + 1 to: self size do: [:i | >>> m := ((self at: i) - (self at: d)) / width + m. >>> d := d + 1. >>> a at: d put: m]. >>> ^a >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > >
