About cr and lf
Locked
12
12
 
|
Hi guys
While writing pillar code, I ended up using "stream cr" and it worries me to still expand usage of a pattern I would like to remove. Let us imagine that we would like to prepare the migration from cr. I was thinking that we could replace cr invocation by newLine so that after newLine could be redefined as Stream >> newLine self nextPutAll: OSPlatform current lineEnding what do you think about this approach? Stef |
|
|
On Fri, 2017-08-04 at 12:03 +0200, Stephane Ducasse wrote:
> Hi guys > > While writing pillar code, I ended up using "stream cr" and it > worries > me to still expand usage > of a pattern I would like to remove. > > Let us imagine that we would like to prepare the migration from cr. > I was thinking that we could replace cr invocation by newLine so that > after newLine > could be redefined as > > Stream >> newLine > self nextPutAll: OSPlatform current lineEnding > > > what do you think about this approach? Why not? But please keep #cr. Section 5.9.4.1 of ANSI reads: Message: cr Synopsis Writes an end-of-line sequence to the receiver. Definition: <puttableStream> A sequence of character objects that constitute the implementation- defined end-of-line sequence is added to the receiver in the same manner as if the message #nextPutAll: was sent to the receiver with an argument string whose elements are the sequence of characters. Return Value UNSPECIFIED Errors It is erroneous if any element of the end-of-line sequence is an object that does not conform to the receiver's sequence value type . my 2c, Jan > > Stef > |
|
|
But the question is: what does cr do? - Does it write a platform independent newLine? - Or does it write a (platform dependent) cr ascii character? On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Jan Vrany <[hidden email]> wrote: On Fri, 2017-08-04 at 12:03 +0200, Stephane Ducasse wrote:
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Jan Vrany
Well. This is not implemented like that in Pharo.
cr is bad because it does not mean that it is independent of the platform. So cr can be redefined as newLine and keep but not used inside the system. Stef On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Jan Vrany <[hidden email]> wrote: > On Fri, 2017-08-04 at 12:03 +0200, Stephane Ducasse wrote: >> Hi guys >> >> While writing pillar code, I ended up using "stream cr" and it >> worries >> me to still expand usage >> of a pattern I would like to remove. >> >> Let us imagine that we would like to prepare the migration from cr. >> I was thinking that we could replace cr invocation by newLine so that >> after newLine >> could be redefined as >> >> Stream >> newLine >> self nextPutAll: OSPlatform current lineEnding >> >> >> what do you think about this approach? > > Why not? But please keep #cr. > > Section 5.9.4.1 of ANSI reads: > > Message: cr > > Synopsis > Writes an end-of-line sequence to the receiver. > > Definition: <puttableStream> > A sequence of character objects that constitute the implementation- > defined end-of-line sequence is added to the receiver in the same > manner as if the message #nextPutAll: was sent to the receiver with > an argument string whose elements are the sequence of characters. > > Return Value > UNSPECIFIED > Errors > It is erroneous if any element of the end-of-line sequence is an > object that does not conform to the receiver's sequence value type . > > my 2c, > > Jan > >> >> Stef >> > |
|
|
> On 4 Aug 2017, at 14:06, Stephane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Well. This is not implemented like that in Pharo. > > cr is bad because it does not mean that it is independent of the platform. > So cr can be redefined as newLine and keep but not used inside the system. sometimes you actually want to write a cr (or a lf). So it needs to remain in the system, of course. now, including #newLine can be cool (most of the times you want the “platform compatible” new line). Also I would consider including #nl, abbreviated… just for convenience :P Esteban > > Stef > > On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Jan Vrany <[hidden email]> wrote: >> On Fri, 2017-08-04 at 12:03 +0200, Stephane Ducasse wrote: >>> Hi guys >>> >>> While writing pillar code, I ended up using "stream cr" and it >>> worries >>> me to still expand usage >>> of a pattern I would like to remove. >>> >>> Let us imagine that we would like to prepare the migration from cr. >>> I was thinking that we could replace cr invocation by newLine so that >>> after newLine >>> could be redefined as >>> >>> Stream >> newLine >>> self nextPutAll: OSPlatform current lineEnding >>> >>> >>> what do you think about this approach? >> >> Why not? But please keep #cr. >> >> Section 5.9.4.1 of ANSI reads: >> >> Message: cr >> >> Synopsis >> Writes an end-of-line sequence to the receiver. >> >> Definition: <puttableStream> >> A sequence of character objects that constitute the implementation- >> defined end-of-line sequence is added to the receiver in the same >> manner as if the message #nextPutAll: was sent to the receiver with >> an argument string whose elements are the sequence of characters. >> >> Return Value >> UNSPECIFIED >> Errors >> It is erroneous if any element of the end-of-line sequence is an >> object that does not conform to the receiver's sequence value type . >> >> my 2c, >> >> Jan >> >>> >>> Stef >>> >> > |
|
|
To me it is clear that cr and lf should be in streams. But they should put the 'cr' or 'lf' character only. And of course the platform independent newline should be also. The first (cr, lf) should be used by the code wanting to have absolute control of what is in the stream. The later (newline) when you just want a new line. The two have completely different behaviour, ones are really low level, the other is higher level. On 4 Aug 2017 14:20, "Esteban Lorenzano" <[hidden email]> wrote:
|
|
|
In reply to this post by EstebanLM
or eol On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]> wrote:
Javier Pimás Ciudad de Buenos Aires |
|
|
In reply to this post by tesonep@gmail.com
I agree with Pablo, #cr and #lf should not be clever and just be names for the carriage return and linefeed characters/codepoints. Making #newLine's behavior dependent on the current platform disturbs me, though. I'd rather have: Stream >> newLineFor: platform self nextPutAll: platform lineEnding Stream >> newLineForCurrentPlatform self newLineFor: OSPlatform current Stream >> newLineForWindows "convenience for the most common platforms Stream >> newLineForUnix Stream >> newLineForHistoricReasons Stream >> newLine "delegates to one of the above, I'd argue for unix for convenience, but windows is the technically correct combination of cr + lf, and cr only is the historic one" On 4 August 2017 at 14:25, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:
|
|
|
+1
|
|
|
In reply to this post by tesonep@gmail.com
Yes :)
On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 2:25 PM, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote: > To me it is clear that cr and lf should be in streams. But they should put > the 'cr' or 'lf' character only. And of course the platform independent > newline should be also. > > The first (cr, lf) should be used by the code wanting to have absolute > control of what is in the stream. The later (newline) when you just want a > new line. > > The two have completely different behaviour, ones are really low level, the > other is higher level. > > On 4 Aug 2017 14:20, "Esteban Lorenzano" <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> >> > On 4 Aug 2017, at 14:06, Stephane Ducasse <[hidden email]> >> > wrote: >> > >> > Well. This is not implemented like that in Pharo. >> > >> > cr is bad because it does not mean that it is independent of the >> > platform. >> > So cr can be redefined as newLine and keep but not used inside the >> > system. >> >> sometimes you actually want to write a cr (or a lf). So it needs to remain >> in the system, of course. >> now, including #newLine can be cool (most of the times you want the >> “platform compatible” new line). Also I would consider including #nl, >> abbreviated… just for convenience :P >> >> Esteban >> >> > >> > Stef >> > >> > On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Jan Vrany <[hidden email]> >> > wrote: >> >> On Fri, 2017-08-04 at 12:03 +0200, Stephane Ducasse wrote: >> >>> Hi guys >> >>> >> >>> While writing pillar code, I ended up using "stream cr" and it >> >>> worries >> >>> me to still expand usage >> >>> of a pattern I would like to remove. >> >>> >> >>> Let us imagine that we would like to prepare the migration from cr. >> >>> I was thinking that we could replace cr invocation by newLine so that >> >>> after newLine >> >>> could be redefined as >> >>> >> >>> Stream >> newLine >> >>> self nextPutAll: OSPlatform current lineEnding >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> what do you think about this approach? >> >> >> >> Why not? But please keep #cr. >> >> >> >> Section 5.9.4.1 of ANSI reads: >> >> >> >> Message: cr >> >> >> >> Synopsis >> >> Writes an end-of-line sequence to the receiver. >> >> >> >> Definition: <puttableStream> >> >> A sequence of character objects that constitute the implementation- >> >> defined end-of-line sequence is added to the receiver in the same >> >> manner as if the message #nextPutAll: was sent to the receiver with >> >> an argument string whose elements are the sequence of characters. >> >> >> >> Return Value >> >> UNSPECIFIED >> >> Errors >> >> It is erroneous if any element of the end-of-line sequence is an >> >> object that does not conform to the receiver's sequence value type . >> >> >> >> my 2c, >> >> >> >> Jan >> >> >> >>> >> >>> Stef >> >>> >> >> >> > >> >> > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Damien Pollet
On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 03:41:05PM +0200, Damien Pollet wrote:
> Stream >> newLineForWindows "convenience for the most common platforms > Stream >> newLineForUnix > Stream >> newLineForHistoricReasons Practically speaking this looks insanely wordy. In 102% (est.) you want to use the same consistent newline and not thinking about for which platform you are writing every time you want to write a new line. I think that most WriteStream miss what MultiByteFileStream has -- lineEndConvention. fileStream lineEndConvention: #lf. fileStream cr. "<- this will be autoconverted to #lf" Also I would like to see a situation where you actually _want_ to use different line endings at the same time, so converting lf/cr to the global one shouldn't break things. So maybe instead of stating what kind of line ending you want to write, you would specify them for the whole stream > Stream >> newLineForWindows "convenience for the most common platforms > Stream >> newLineForUnix > Stream >> newLineForHistoricReasons Stream>>beForCurrentPlatform (would be the default maybe?) Stream>>beForWindows "crlf" Stream>>beForUnix "lf" Stream>>beAnnoyingOutsideOfPharo "cr" Peter > > Stream >> newLine > "delegates to one of the above, I'd argue for unix for convenience, but > windows is the technically correct combination of cr + lf, and cr only is > the historic one" > > > On 4 August 2017 at 14:25, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > To me it is clear that cr and lf should be in streams. But they should put > > the 'cr' or 'lf' character only. And of course the platform independent > > newline should be also. > > > > The first (cr, lf) should be used by the code wanting to have absolute > > control of what is in the stream. The later (newline) when you just want a > > new line. > > > > The two have completely different behaviour, ones are really low level, > > the other is higher level. > > > > On 4 Aug 2017 14:20, "Esteban Lorenzano" <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > >> > >> > On 4 Aug 2017, at 14:06, Stephane Ducasse <[hidden email]> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > Well. This is not implemented like that in Pharo. > >> > > >> > cr is bad because it does not mean that it is independent of the > >> platform. > >> > So cr can be redefined as newLine and keep but not used inside the > >> system. > >> > >> sometimes you actually want to write a cr (or a lf). So it needs to > >> remain in the system, of course. > >> now, including #newLine can be cool (most of the times you want the > >> “platform compatible” new line). Also I would consider including #nl, > >> abbreviated… just for convenience :P > >> > >> Esteban > >> > >> > > >> > Stef > >> > > >> > On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Jan Vrany <[hidden email]> > >> wrote: > >> >> On Fri, 2017-08-04 at 12:03 +0200, Stephane Ducasse wrote: > >> >>> Hi guys > >> >>> > >> >>> While writing pillar code, I ended up using "stream cr" and it > >> >>> worries > >> >>> me to still expand usage > >> >>> of a pattern I would like to remove. > >> >>> > >> >>> Let us imagine that we would like to prepare the migration from cr. > >> >>> I was thinking that we could replace cr invocation by newLine so that > >> >>> after newLine > >> >>> could be redefined as > >> >>> > >> >>> Stream >> newLine > >> >>> self nextPutAll: OSPlatform current lineEnding > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> what do you think about this approach? > >> >> > >> >> Why not? But please keep #cr. > >> >> > >> >> Section 5.9.4.1 of ANSI reads: > >> >> > >> >> Message: cr > >> >> > >> >> Synopsis > >> >> Writes an end-of-line sequence to the receiver. > >> >> > >> >> Definition: <puttableStream> > >> >> A sequence of character objects that constitute the implementation- > >> >> defined end-of-line sequence is added to the receiver in the same > >> >> manner as if the message #nextPutAll: was sent to the receiver with > >> >> an argument string whose elements are the sequence of characters. > >> >> > >> >> Return Value > >> >> UNSPECIFIED > >> >> Errors > >> >> It is erroneous if any element of the end-of-line sequence is an > >> >> object that does not conform to the receiver's sequence value type . > >> >> > >> >> my 2c, > >> >> > >> >> Jan > >> >> > >> >>> > >> >>> Stef > >> >>> > >> >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > > -- > Damien Pollet > type less, do more [ | ] http://people.untyped.org/damien.pollet |
|
|
In reply to this post by Stephane Ducasse-3
On Fri, 2017-08-04 at 14:06 +0200, Stephane Ducasse wrote:
> Well. This is not implemented like that in Pharo. > > cr is bad because it does not mean that it is independent of the > platform. > So cr can be redefined as newLine and keep but not used inside the > system. Yes, that's exactly what I meant. cr self newLine Jan > > Stef > > On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Jan Vrany <[hidden email]> > wrote: > > On Fri, 2017-08-04 at 12:03 +0200, Stephane Ducasse wrote: > > > Hi guys > > > > > > While writing pillar code, I ended up using "stream cr" and it > > > worries > > > me to still expand usage > > > of a pattern I would like to remove. > > > > > > Let us imagine that we would like to prepare the migration from > > > cr. > > > I was thinking that we could replace cr invocation by newLine so > > > that > > > after newLine > > > could be redefined as > > > > > > Stream >> newLine > > > self nextPutAll: OSPlatform current lineEnding > > > > > > > > > what do you think about this approach? > > > > Why not? But please keep #cr. > > > > Section 5.9.4.1 of ANSI reads: > > > > Message: cr > > > > Synopsis > > Writes an end-of-line sequence to the receiver. > > > > Definition: <puttableStream> > > A sequence of character objects that constitute the > > implementation- > > defined end-of-line sequence is added to the receiver in the same > > manner as if the message #nextPutAll: was sent to the receiver > > with > > an argument string whose elements are the sequence of characters. > > > > Return Value > > UNSPECIFIED > > Errors > > It is erroneous if any element of the end-of-line sequence is an > > object that does not conform to the receiver's sequence value type > > . > > > > my 2c, > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > Stef > > > > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Stephane Ducasse-3
I vote for: #cr and #lf just put this character in the stream.On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 7:03 AM, Stephane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote: Hi guys |
|
|
In reply to this post by Peter Uhnak
On 4 August 2017 at 18:52, Peter Uhnak <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 03:41:05PM +0200, Damien Pollet wrote: Hmm, granted :) I think that most WriteStream miss what MultiByteFileStream has -- lineEndConvention. Agreed. fileStream cr. "<- this will be autoconverted to #lf" No… please don't abuse a low-level explicit selector to mean something context-dependent. Also I would like to see a situation where you actually _want_ to use different line endings at the same time, so converting lf/cr to the global one shouldn't break things. But it's ugly… So maybe instead of stating what kind of line ending you want to write, you would specify them for the whole stream Yes, I actually prefer that to my own proposition, just don't make #cr and #lf contextually put something else than their name implies. #newline (or #nl if you prefer it concise) should be the contextual message |
|
|
In reply to this post by EstebanLM
+1.
We need a basic representation of those characters. Logical ones should be derived from the simple ones. Doru > On Aug 4, 2017, at 3:44 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]> wrote: > > >> On 4 Aug 2017, at 15:41, Damien Pollet <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> I agree with Pablo, #cr and #lf should not be clever and just be names for the carriage return and linefeed characters/codepoints. > > +1 > >> >> Making #newLine's behavior dependent on the current platform disturbs me, though. I'd rather have: >> >> Stream >> newLineFor: platform >> self nextPutAll: platform lineEnding >> >> Stream >> newLineForCurrentPlatform >> self newLineFor: OSPlatform current >> >> Stream >> newLineForWindows "convenience for the most common platforms >> Stream >> newLineForUnix >> Stream >> newLineForHistoricReasons >> >> Stream >> newLine >> "delegates to one of the above, I'd argue for unix for convenience, but windows is the technically correct combination of cr + lf, and cr only is the historic one" >> >> >> On 4 August 2017 at 14:25, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote: >> To me it is clear that cr and lf should be in streams. But they should put the 'cr' or 'lf' character only. And of course the platform independent newline should be also. >> >> The first (cr, lf) should be used by the code wanting to have absolute control of what is in the stream. The later (newline) when you just want a new line. >> >> The two have completely different behaviour, ones are really low level, the other is higher level. >> >> On 4 Aug 2017 14:20, "Esteban Lorenzano" <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> > On 4 Aug 2017, at 14:06, Stephane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote: >> > >> > Well. This is not implemented like that in Pharo. >> > >> > cr is bad because it does not mean that it is independent of the platform. >> > So cr can be redefined as newLine and keep but not used inside the system. >> >> sometimes you actually want to write a cr (or a lf). So it needs to remain in the system, of course. >> now, including #newLine can be cool (most of the times you want the “platform compatible” new line). Also I would consider including #nl, abbreviated… just for convenience :P >> >> Esteban >> >> > >> > Stef >> > >> > On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Jan Vrany <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> On Fri, 2017-08-04 at 12:03 +0200, Stephane Ducasse wrote: >> >>> Hi guys >> >>> >> >>> While writing pillar code, I ended up using "stream cr" and it >> >>> worries >> >>> me to still expand usage >> >>> of a pattern I would like to remove. >> >>> >> >>> Let us imagine that we would like to prepare the migration from cr. >> >>> I was thinking that we could replace cr invocation by newLine so that >> >>> after newLine >> >>> could be redefined as >> >>> >> >>> Stream >> newLine >> >>> self nextPutAll: OSPlatform current lineEnding >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> what do you think about this approach? >> >> >> >> Why not? But please keep #cr. >> >> >> >> Section 5.9.4.1 of ANSI reads: >> >> >> >> Message: cr >> >> >> >> Synopsis >> >> Writes an end-of-line sequence to the receiver. >> >> >> >> Definition: <puttableStream> >> >> A sequence of character objects that constitute the implementation- >> >> defined end-of-line sequence is added to the receiver in the same >> >> manner as if the message #nextPutAll: was sent to the receiver with >> >> an argument string whose elements are the sequence of characters. >> >> >> >> Return Value >> >> UNSPECIFIED >> >> Errors >> >> It is erroneous if any element of the end-of-line sequence is an >> >> object that does not conform to the receiver's sequence value type . >> >> >> >> my 2c, >> >> >> >> Jan >> >> >> >>> >> >>> Stef >> >>> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Damien Pollet >> type less, do more [ | ] http://people.untyped.org/damien.pollet > -- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com "Presenting is storytelling." |
|
|
I think there is a consensus we need to keep #cr and #lf as intended, yet to add some kind of #newLine (which btw is different to EOL :P) vocabulary, isn’t?
In this, I favour Peter approach for define line ending convention (the way #newLine will work)… and of course by default it should use the one from the current platform. anything agains this approach? Esteban > On 4 Aug 2017, at 23:48, Tudor Girba <[hidden email]> wrote: > > +1. > > We need a basic representation of those characters. Logical ones should be derived from the simple ones. > > Doru > > >> On Aug 4, 2017, at 3:44 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> >>> On 4 Aug 2017, at 15:41, Damien Pollet <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> I agree with Pablo, #cr and #lf should not be clever and just be names for the carriage return and linefeed characters/codepoints. >> >> +1 >> >>> >>> Making #newLine's behavior dependent on the current platform disturbs me, though. I'd rather have: >>> >>> Stream >> newLineFor: platform >>> self nextPutAll: platform lineEnding >>> >>> Stream >> newLineForCurrentPlatform >>> self newLineFor: OSPlatform current >>> >>> Stream >> newLineForWindows "convenience for the most common platforms >>> Stream >> newLineForUnix >>> Stream >> newLineForHistoricReasons >>> >>> Stream >> newLine >>> "delegates to one of the above, I'd argue for unix for convenience, but windows is the technically correct combination of cr + lf, and cr only is the historic one" >>> >>> >>> On 4 August 2017 at 14:25, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> To me it is clear that cr and lf should be in streams. But they should put the 'cr' or 'lf' character only. And of course the platform independent newline should be also. >>> >>> The first (cr, lf) should be used by the code wanting to have absolute control of what is in the stream. The later (newline) when you just want a new line. >>> >>> The two have completely different behaviour, ones are really low level, the other is higher level. >>> >>> On 4 Aug 2017 14:20, "Esteban Lorenzano" <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>>> On 4 Aug 2017, at 14:06, Stephane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Well. This is not implemented like that in Pharo. >>>> >>>> cr is bad because it does not mean that it is independent of the platform. >>>> So cr can be redefined as newLine and keep but not used inside the system. >>> >>> sometimes you actually want to write a cr (or a lf). So it needs to remain in the system, of course. >>> now, including #newLine can be cool (most of the times you want the “platform compatible” new line). Also I would consider including #nl, abbreviated… just for convenience :P >>> >>> Esteban >>> >>>> >>>> Stef >>>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Jan Vrany <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 2017-08-04 at 12:03 +0200, Stephane Ducasse wrote: >>>>>> Hi guys >>>>>> >>>>>> While writing pillar code, I ended up using "stream cr" and it >>>>>> worries >>>>>> me to still expand usage >>>>>> of a pattern I would like to remove. >>>>>> >>>>>> Let us imagine that we would like to prepare the migration from cr. >>>>>> I was thinking that we could replace cr invocation by newLine so that >>>>>> after newLine >>>>>> could be redefined as >>>>>> >>>>>> Stream >> newLine >>>>>> self nextPutAll: OSPlatform current lineEnding >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> what do you think about this approach? >>>>> >>>>> Why not? But please keep #cr. >>>>> >>>>> Section 5.9.4.1 of ANSI reads: >>>>> >>>>> Message: cr >>>>> >>>>> Synopsis >>>>> Writes an end-of-line sequence to the receiver. >>>>> >>>>> Definition: <puttableStream> >>>>> A sequence of character objects that constitute the implementation- >>>>> defined end-of-line sequence is added to the receiver in the same >>>>> manner as if the message #nextPutAll: was sent to the receiver with >>>>> an argument string whose elements are the sequence of characters. >>>>> >>>>> Return Value >>>>> UNSPECIFIED >>>>> Errors >>>>> It is erroneous if any element of the end-of-line sequence is an >>>>> object that does not conform to the receiver's sequence value type . >>>>> >>>>> my 2c, >>>>> >>>>> Jan >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Stef >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Damien Pollet >>> type less, do more [ | ] http://people.untyped.org/damien.pollet >> > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > www.feenk.com > > "Presenting is storytelling." > > |
|
|
On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 10:49:02AM +0200, Esteban Lorenzano wrote:
> I think there is a consensus we need to keep #cr and #lf as intended, > yet to add some kind of #newLine (which btw is different to EOL :P) > vocabulary, isn???t? > > In this, I favour Peter approach for define line ending convention > (the way #newLine will work)??? and of course by default it should use > the one from the current platform. > > anything agains this approach? > > Esteban +1 I prefer #nl to #newLine, but admit that it is a subjective preference and that descriptive names are generally better. Cheers, Alistair > > On 4 Aug 2017, at 23:48, Tudor Girba <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > +1. > > > > We need a basic representation of those characters. Logical ones should be derived from the simple ones. > > > > Doru > > > > > >> On Aug 4, 2017, at 3:44 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> > >> > >>> On 4 Aug 2017, at 15:41, Damien Pollet <[hidden email]> wrote: > >>> > >>> I agree with Pablo, #cr and #lf should not be clever and just be names for the carriage return and linefeed characters/codepoints. > >> > >> +1 > >> > >>> > >>> Making #newLine's behavior dependent on the current platform disturbs me, though. I'd rather have: > >>> > >>> Stream >> newLineFor: platform > >>> self nextPutAll: platform lineEnding > >>> > >>> Stream >> newLineForCurrentPlatform > >>> self newLineFor: OSPlatform current > >>> > >>> Stream >> newLineForWindows "convenience for the most common platforms > >>> Stream >> newLineForUnix > >>> Stream >> newLineForHistoricReasons > >>> > >>> Stream >> newLine > >>> "delegates to one of the above, I'd argue for unix for convenience, but windows is the technically correct combination of cr + lf, and cr only is the historic one" > >>> > >>> > >>> On 4 August 2017 at 14:25, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote: > >>> To me it is clear that cr and lf should be in streams. But they should put the 'cr' or 'lf' character only. And of course the platform independent newline should be also. > >>> > >>> The first (cr, lf) should be used by the code wanting to have absolute control of what is in the stream. The later (newline) when you just want a new line. > >>> > >>> The two have completely different behaviour, ones are really low level, the other is higher level. > >>> > >>> On 4 Aug 2017 14:20, "Esteban Lorenzano" <[hidden email]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 4 Aug 2017, at 14:06, Stephane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Well. This is not implemented like that in Pharo. > >>>> > >>>> cr is bad because it does not mean that it is independent of the platform. > >>>> So cr can be redefined as newLine and keep but not used inside the system. > >>> > >>> sometimes you actually want to write a cr (or a lf). So it needs to remain in the system, of course. > >>> now, including #newLine can be cool (most of the times you want the ???platform compatible??? new line). Also I would consider including #nl, abbreviated??? just for convenience :P > >>> > >>> Esteban > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Stef > >>>> > >>>> On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Jan Vrany <[hidden email]> wrote: > >>>>> On Fri, 2017-08-04 at 12:03 +0200, Stephane Ducasse wrote: > >>>>>> Hi guys > >>>>>> > >>>>>> While writing pillar code, I ended up using "stream cr" and it > >>>>>> worries > >>>>>> me to still expand usage > >>>>>> of a pattern I would like to remove. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Let us imagine that we would like to prepare the migration from cr. > >>>>>> I was thinking that we could replace cr invocation by newLine so that > >>>>>> after newLine > >>>>>> could be redefined as > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Stream >> newLine > >>>>>> self nextPutAll: OSPlatform current lineEnding > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> what do you think about this approach? > >>>>> > >>>>> Why not? But please keep #cr. > >>>>> > >>>>> Section 5.9.4.1 of ANSI reads: > >>>>> > >>>>> Message: cr > >>>>> > >>>>> Synopsis > >>>>> Writes an end-of-line sequence to the receiver. > >>>>> > >>>>> Definition: <puttableStream> > >>>>> A sequence of character objects that constitute the implementation- > >>>>> defined end-of-line sequence is added to the receiver in the same > >>>>> manner as if the message #nextPutAll: was sent to the receiver with > >>>>> an argument string whose elements are the sequence of characters. > >>>>> > >>>>> Return Value > >>>>> UNSPECIFIED > >>>>> Errors > >>>>> It is erroneous if any element of the end-of-line sequence is an > >>>>> object that does not conform to the receiver's sequence value type . > >>>>> > >>>>> my 2c, > >>>>> > >>>>> Jan > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Stef > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Damien Pollet > >>> type less, do more [ | ] http://people.untyped.org/damien.pollet |
|
|
> On 5 Aug 2017, at 11:06, Alistair Grant <[hidden email]> wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 10:49:02AM +0200, Esteban Lorenzano wrote: >> I think there is a consensus we need to keep #cr and #lf as intended, >> yet to add some kind of #newLine (which btw is different to EOL :P) >> vocabulary, isn???t? >> >> In this, I favour Peter approach for define line ending convention >> (the way #newLine will work)??? and of course by default it should use >> the one from the current platform. >> >> anything agains this approach? >> >> Esteban > > +1 > > I prefer #nl to #newLine, but admit that it is a subjective preference > and that descriptive names are generally better. heh, me too… but is a bit cryptic. > > Cheers, > Alistair > > >>> On 4 Aug 2017, at 23:48, Tudor Girba <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> +1. >>> >>> We need a basic representation of those characters. Logical ones should be derived from the simple ones. >>> >>> Doru >>> >>> >>>> On Aug 4, 2017, at 3:44 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 4 Aug 2017, at 15:41, Damien Pollet <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I agree with Pablo, #cr and #lf should not be clever and just be names for the carriage return and linefeed characters/codepoints. >>>> >>>> +1 >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Making #newLine's behavior dependent on the current platform disturbs me, though. I'd rather have: >>>>> >>>>> Stream >> newLineFor: platform >>>>> self nextPutAll: platform lineEnding >>>>> >>>>> Stream >> newLineForCurrentPlatform >>>>> self newLineFor: OSPlatform current >>>>> >>>>> Stream >> newLineForWindows "convenience for the most common platforms >>>>> Stream >> newLineForUnix >>>>> Stream >> newLineForHistoricReasons >>>>> >>>>> Stream >> newLine >>>>> "delegates to one of the above, I'd argue for unix for convenience, but windows is the technically correct combination of cr + lf, and cr only is the historic one" >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 4 August 2017 at 14:25, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>> To me it is clear that cr and lf should be in streams. But they should put the 'cr' or 'lf' character only. And of course the platform independent newline should be also. >>>>> >>>>> The first (cr, lf) should be used by the code wanting to have absolute control of what is in the stream. The later (newline) when you just want a new line. >>>>> >>>>> The two have completely different behaviour, ones are really low level, the other is higher level. >>>>> >>>>> On 4 Aug 2017 14:20, "Esteban Lorenzano" <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 4 Aug 2017, at 14:06, Stephane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Well. This is not implemented like that in Pharo. >>>>>> >>>>>> cr is bad because it does not mean that it is independent of the platform. >>>>>> So cr can be redefined as newLine and keep but not used inside the system. >>>>> >>>>> sometimes you actually want to write a cr (or a lf). So it needs to remain in the system, of course. >>>>> now, including #newLine can be cool (most of the times you want the ???platform compatible??? new line). Also I would consider including #nl, abbreviated??? just for convenience :P >>>>> >>>>> Esteban >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Stef >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Jan Vrany <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, 2017-08-04 at 12:03 +0200, Stephane Ducasse wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi guys >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> While writing pillar code, I ended up using "stream cr" and it >>>>>>>> worries >>>>>>>> me to still expand usage >>>>>>>> of a pattern I would like to remove. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Let us imagine that we would like to prepare the migration from cr. >>>>>>>> I was thinking that we could replace cr invocation by newLine so that >>>>>>>> after newLine >>>>>>>> could be redefined as >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Stream >> newLine >>>>>>>> self nextPutAll: OSPlatform current lineEnding >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> what do you think about this approach? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why not? But please keep #cr. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Section 5.9.4.1 of ANSI reads: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Message: cr >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Synopsis >>>>>>> Writes an end-of-line sequence to the receiver. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Definition: <puttableStream> >>>>>>> A sequence of character objects that constitute the implementation- >>>>>>> defined end-of-line sequence is added to the receiver in the same >>>>>>> manner as if the message #nextPutAll: was sent to the receiver with >>>>>>> an argument string whose elements are the sequence of characters. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Return Value >>>>>>> UNSPECIFIED >>>>>>> Errors >>>>>>> It is erroneous if any element of the end-of-line sequence is an >>>>>>> object that does not conform to the receiver's sequence value type . >>>>>>> >>>>>>> my 2c, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jan >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Stef >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Damien Pollet >>>>> type less, do more [ | ] http://people.untyped.org/damien.pollet > |
|
|
On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 11:09:51AM +0200, Esteban Lorenzano wrote:
> > > On 5 Aug 2017, at 11:06, Alistair Grant <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 10:49:02AM +0200, Esteban Lorenzano wrote: > >> I think there is a consensus we need to keep #cr and #lf as intended, > >> yet to add some kind of #newLine (which btw is different to EOL :P) > >> vocabulary, isn???t? > >> > >> In this, I favour Peter approach for define line ending convention > >> (the way #newLine will work)??? and of course by default it should use > >> the one from the current platform. > >> > >> anything agains this approach? > >> > >> Esteban > > > > +1 > > > > I prefer #nl to #newLine, but admit that it is a subjective preference > > and that descriptive names are generally better. > > heh, me too... but is a bit cryptic. #nl "Insert the platform dependent end of line character. For people that haven't got used to terminal communications rising above 9600baud" ^self newLine :-) |
|
|
|
«
Return to Pharo Smalltalk Developers
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |