.chars, .bytes, etc.
Hi all, After some thinking it occured to me that the current way of defining .chars, .bytes and .elems (and whatever else there are) doesn't make any sense to me. In pugs at least they currently return the amount of units in question - in any context! Why not define .chars like this: Context Return value itemamount of units listunits themselves Juerd proposed this list originally, which matches my thinking. Originally I thought that .elems and .chars were symmetric and both should behave the same semantically, but now I think that's false - if there should be an .elems method, leave it at returning an Int at all times. @foo.elems returning the elements in @foo makes no sense. -- wolverian signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: .chars, .bytes, etc.
wolverian skribis 2005-09-24 13:45 (+0300): Why not define .chars like this: Context Return value itemamount of units listunits themselves Agreed, of course. Originally I thought that .elems and .chars were symmetric and both should behave the same semantically I still think this. They certainly LOOK symmetric. But .elems isn't needed. At all. [EMAIL PROTECTED] already is the number of elements, list @foo already is a list of elements. Now, if we're going to have .elems anyway, then let it be symmetric with .chars. The difference with @foo without .elems would then be non-Num item context: item @foo returns [EMAIL PROTECTED], but item @foo.elems returns [EMAIL PROTECTED] Still, I'd prefer not having .elems at all, as it adds nothing but confusion, regardless of which of the two semantic sets is chosen. Juerd -- http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy.html http://convolution.nl/gajigu_juerd_n.html
k, v
Hashes are full of convenience, and Huffman would be proud: %hash.keys %hash.key %hash.values%hash.value %hash.kvzip(%hash.keys, %hash.values) One thing occurred to me: if hashes are worth all this, then why not abbreviate keys further to k (as in kv), and values to v (as in kv). This would allow us to rename key to k and value to v too, resulting in: %hash.k %hash.k %hash.v %hash.v %hash.kvzip(%hash.k, %hash.v) With hashes and pairs, I don't think there could be any confusion over the meaning of k and v, just like kv works without explanation. (Not having to type alue also makes it easier for a pair to NOT evaluate to its value, but that's another thread.) Juerd -- http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy.html http://convolution.nl/gajigu_juerd_n.html
Re: k, v
J == Juerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: J Hashes are full of convenience, and Huffman would be proud: J %hash.keys %hash.key J %hash.values%hash.value J %hash.kvzip(%hash.keys, %hash.values) J One thing occurred to me: if hashes are worth all this, then why not J abbreviate keys further to k (as in kv), and values to v (as J in kv). This would allow us to rename key to k and value to v J too, resulting in: J %hash.k %hash.k J %hash.v %hash.v J %hash.kvzip(%hash.k, %hash.v) huffman has its limits too. in general having single letter names for anything is a poor idea. it makes it hard to search for, you limit it to only one thing that can use that letter, it isn't always easy to remember what a given letter is, etc. keys and values are short enough and read much better. kv works because keyvalues is clunky and too long. i wouldn't have minded .pairs or .each instead of kv. but alias methods are easy to add. uri -- Uri Guttman -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.stemsystems.com --Perl Consulting, Stem Development, Systems Architecture, Design and Coding- Search or Offer Perl Jobs http://jobs.perl.org
Re: k, v
Uri Guttman skribis 2005-09-24 10:37 (-0400): huffman has its limits too. in general having single letter names for anything is a poor idea. it makes it hard to search for, you limit it to only one thing that can use that letter, it isn't always easy to remember what a given letter is, etc. keys and values are short enough and read much better. kv works because keyvalues is clunky and too long. This reasoning works for me. Thank you. i wouldn't have minded .pairs or .each instead of kv. but alias methods are easy to add. I'd expect .pairs to return pairs, not keys and values zipped. Re each, I don't know what to expect: a single pair, or all pairs. Not what .kv does, anyway. Juerd -- http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy.html http://convolution.nl/gajigu_juerd_n.html
