I have a dream... or why I think that compatibility is an illusion and bring us to the past

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
27 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

I have a dream... or why I think that compatibility is an illusion and bring us to the past

ducasse
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.



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I have a dream... or why I think that compatibility is an illusion and bring us to the past

Sven Van Caekenberghe-2


> On 10 Sep 2019, at 22:14, ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Then we have two that could really improve our language
> ? and !

I never thought about that, but indeed, that would be quite nice.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I have a dream... or why I think that compatibility is an illusion and bring us to the past

philippeback
Yes, it would.

On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 10:55 PM Sven Van Caekenberghe <[hidden email]> wrote:


> On 10 Sep 2019, at 22:14, ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Then we have two that could really improve our language
>       ? and !

I never thought about that, but indeed, that would be quite nice.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I have a dream... or why I think that compatibility is an illusion and bring us to the past

gcotelli
In reply to this post by ducasse
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.
  • · 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)
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




On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 5:15 PM ducasse <[hidden email]> 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.



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Allow selected special characters as part of unary and keyword selectors?

jgfoster
In reply to this post by ducasse
Would use of ? and ! in unary/keyword selectors be convention or somehow required? If simply convention, then we should start with renaming testing methods to be named is* or has*.
        flag1 := anInteger even. “not good"
        flag2 := anInteger isEven. “better"
        flag3 := anInteger even?. “how much better?”
        flag4 := #(1 2 3) includes?: 2. “how much better?"
I’m not convinced that having another way to indicate a testing method will help if people still don’t name methods well.

Also, can you give an example of where ! would clarify the meaning? Are you thinking of the following:
        myPoint x!: 3.
        myArray at: 1 put!: nil.
Those don’t seem to be much improved!

I’m not arguing for “compatibility" or "staying in the past." I’m just trying to understand the benefit.

Thanks,

James

> On Sep 10, 2019, at 1:14 PM, ducasse <[hidden email]> 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.
>
>
>
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I have a dream... or why I think that compatibility is an illusion and bring us to the past

philippeback
In reply to this post by gcotelli
I feel an APL forcefield growing.

Phil

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 02:14 Gabriel Cotelli <[hidden email]> 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.
  • · 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)
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




On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 5:15 PM ducasse <[hidden email]> 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.



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I have a dream... or why I think that compatibility is an illusion and bring us to the past

vonbecmann
sorry, how do you type unicode characters? 

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 1:07 AM [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:
I feel an APL forcefield growing.

Phil

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 02:14 Gabriel Cotelli <[hidden email]> 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.
  • · 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)
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




On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 5:15 PM ducasse <[hidden email]> 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.





--
Bernardo E.C.

Sent from a cheap desktop computer in South America.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I have a dream... or why I think that compatibility is an illusion and bring us to the past

ducasse
In reply to this post by gcotelli


On 11 Sep 2019, at 02:13, Gabriel Cotelli <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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.




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Allow selected special characters as part of unary and keyword selectors?

ducasse
In reply to this post by jgfoster


> On 11 Sep 2019, at 04:07, James Foster <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Would use of ? and ! in unary/keyword selectors be convention or somehow required? If simply convention, then we should start with renaming testing methods to be named is* or has*.
> flag1 := anInteger even. “not good"
> flag2 := anInteger isEven. “better"
> flag3 := anInteger even?. “how much better?”
> flag4 := #(1 2 3) includes?: 2. “how much better?”

I think that I would use ? mainly for unary message

Now I’m sure that if you look carefully some people use

        include
                for the action
        includes
                for the tests

I took include as an example and this is super not intention revealing.

>> lineUpBlockBrackets

        lineUpBlockBrackets?
        Now I will rewrite them all as shouldLineUpBlockBrackets or isLineUpBlockBrackets and to me for unary message ? makes it a lot better.

> I’m not convinced that having another way to indicate a testing method will help if people still don’t name methods well.
>
> Also, can you give an example of where ! would clarify the meaning? Are you thinking of the following:
> myPoint x!: 3.
> myArray at: 1 put!: nil.
> Those don’t seem to be much improved!

Pay attention you cannot use ! as separator.
For ! I do not care now.

> I’m not arguing for “compatibility" or "staying in the past." I’m just trying to understand the benefit.

The question ?

>
> Thanks,
>
> James
>
>> On Sep 10, 2019, at 1:14 PM, ducasse <[hidden email]> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I have a dream... or why I think that compatibility is an illusion and bring us to the past

SergeStinckwich
In reply to this post by gcotelli


On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 2:14 AM Gabriel Cotelli <[hidden email]> 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.
  • · 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)
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



Yes I would like to have something like that for PolyMath :-)
Is it possible to use Unicode characters for identifiers already ?

I working on the port of : https://github.com/len/Domains
to Pharo. The author modify the Cuis parser, so he can do things like that :

"⊕ is used for direct sums, ⊗ for tensor products, × for cartesian product, direct product of groups, ring products, and in general for categorical products."

and also define ^ as a binary method:

"The ^ (hat) operator is used for exponentiation as well as conjugation by group elements, and for creating free modules of tuples and matrices."

I'm not sure this is a good idea, because ^ is used also to return values.

A+
--
Serge Stinckwic
h

Int. Research Unit
 on Modelling/Simulation of Complex Systems (UMMISCO)
Sorbonne University
 (SU)
French National Research Institute for Sustainable Development (IRD)
U
niversity of Yaoundé I, Cameroon
"Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute."
https://twitter.com/SergeStinckwich
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Allow selected special characters as part of unary and keyword selectors?

gcotelli
In reply to this post by ducasse
Using ? for unary messages does not compose so well when you want to do some logical conditions.
For example
self isClass? or: [ self isTrait? ] . It's readable, but probably you want the ? just at the end of the sentence.

For ! one use case is to use it for factorial, like we do in Math. So 5 ! --> 120.
Also I don't know any good use case for ! as binary selector.

? has only one implementor in the Pharo image in some Url related code for query parameters.

BTW, still using * for multiplication feels so 90's. :)

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 4:10 AM ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:


> On 11 Sep 2019, at 04:07, James Foster <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Would use of ? and ! in unary/keyword selectors be convention or somehow required? If simply convention, then we should start with renaming testing methods to be named is* or has*.
>       flag1 := anInteger even.                “not good"
>       flag2 := anInteger isEven.      “better"
>       flag3 := anInteger even?.       “how much better?”
>       flag4 := #(1 2 3) includes?: 2. “how much better?”

I think that I would use ? mainly for unary message

Now I’m sure that if you look carefully some people use

        include
                for the action
        includes
                for the tests

I took include as an example and this is super not intention revealing.

>> lineUpBlockBrackets

        lineUpBlockBrackets?
        Now I will rewrite them all as shouldLineUpBlockBrackets or isLineUpBlockBrackets and to me for unary message ? makes it a lot better.

> I’m not convinced that having another way to indicate a testing method will help if people still don’t name methods well.
>
> Also, can you give an example of where ! would clarify the meaning? Are you thinking of the following:
>       myPoint x!: 3.
>       myArray at: 1 put!: nil.
> Those don’t seem to be much improved!

Pay attention you cannot use ! as separator.
For ! I do not care now.

> I’m not arguing for “compatibility" or "staying in the past." I’m just trying to understand the benefit.

The question ?

>
> Thanks,
>
> James
>
>> On Sep 10, 2019, at 1:14 PM, ducasse <[hidden email]> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I have a dream... or why I think that compatibility is an illusion and bring us to the past

Nicolas Cellier
In reply to this post by SergeStinckwich


Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 à 10:40, Serge Stinckwich <[hidden email]> a écrit :


On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 2:14 AM Gabriel Cotelli <[hidden email]> 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.
  • · 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)
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



Yes I would like to have something like that for PolyMath :-)
Is it possible to use Unicode characters for identifiers already ?

I working on the port of : https://github.com/len/Domains
to Pharo. The author modify the Cuis parser, so he can do things like that :

"⊕ is used for direct sums, ⊗ for tensor products, × for cartesian product, direct product of groups, ring products, and in general for categorical products."

Of course we want to be able to use those selectors:  ⊕  ⊗ etc...
Not using those selectors in core image is one thing, forbiding their usage for every package is another thing

Concerning the selectors with more than 2 characters, there are two examples in use in Squeak
==> logical implication (I use it a lot when writing tests cases)
<=> space ship operator
/// has been used in the past (but is rather deprecated)

What is questionable is cultural acceptance of universal meaning of a Symbol
<=> could have meant logical equivalence, but it would be pointless, because = (and == thanks to singleton) are already equivalence.
It has been expunged from Pharo to my regrets, because it is
- beautifully self defined as < = >
- culturally legitimate
- the art of original author (Travis Griggs)
There is no sacred cow, but respect of author has a value for me.

It's sure that every binary selector might be questionable, at least in core image.
For application, you never know (think DSL) we can create a lot of not completely inaesthetic ASCII styles
<|>  ><   <+> <->  /+/  |*|
For example +/- could be used for interval arithmetic (if we don't want to pay the burden of typing unicode, which ain't easy)
/\  \/  intersection and union
|\| the Nicolas operator - I didn't fin a usage for it yet ;)
etc...
So why would one want to forbid them?

For ? and ! I do not foresee elegant usage as binary, but would not miss them as regular letters eithers.
It means accepting huge???  - understand isReallyHuge :)
huge?:or!:???and: which are not less questionable.

Ideally, it should be really easy to define one's own syntax in any class (already possible with own compiler/parser/scanner/whatever), or maybe any method
I find that it's somehow more complex with the well engineered new Compiler than it was with the very hackish legacy one, but that's a detail.


and also define ^ as a binary method:

"The ^ (hat) operator is used for exponentiation as well as conjugation by group elements, and for creating free modules of tuples and matrices."

I'm not sure this is a good idea, because ^ is used also to return values.

There is no ambiguity for ^ and i have proposed that in Squeak years ago, it's a very simple change (here for legacy Compiler)

The only argument against it is that omitting the point ending last but one sentence would not be detected as invalid syntax

    self doThis.
    ^self doThat

versus

    self doThis
    ^self doThat

To address this concern, we could have rules concerning the formatting:
normally we would write

    self doThis ^ self doThat

or eventually if on several lines, we would generally indent

    self doThis
        ^ self doThat

An unusual formatting is a code smell IMO
And in fact, this is not much different from un-detecting when we send a message #self when forgetting the point

    self doThis
    self doThat

    self doThis self doThat.


A+
--
Serge Stinckwic
h

Int. Research Unit
 on Modelling/Simulation of Complex Systems (UMMISCO)
Sorbonne University
 (SU)
French National Research Institute for Sustainable Development (IRD)
U
niversity of Yaoundé I, Cameroon
"Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute."
https://twitter.com/SergeStinckwich
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I have a dream... or why I think that compatibility is an illusion and bring us to the past

Nicolas Cellier
Ah, and I forgot about your argumentation Stef:

you cannot forbid binary selectors altogether because some are ugly @@*+!!! (I think I read this one in Asterix le gaulois)
for the same reasons that youCanNOtfOrBIDunaYSElectORSWIthletTersBECauSESoMeaREUgly

Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 à 19:44, Nicolas Cellier <[hidden email]> a écrit :


Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 à 10:40, Serge Stinckwich <[hidden email]> a écrit :


On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 2:14 AM Gabriel Cotelli <[hidden email]> 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.
  • · 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)
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



Yes I would like to have something like that for PolyMath :-)
Is it possible to use Unicode characters for identifiers already ?

I working on the port of : https://github.com/len/Domains
to Pharo. The author modify the Cuis parser, so he can do things like that :

"⊕ is used for direct sums, ⊗ for tensor products, × for cartesian product, direct product of groups, ring products, and in general for categorical products."

Of course we want to be able to use those selectors:  ⊕  ⊗ etc...
Not using those selectors in core image is one thing, forbiding their usage for every package is another thing

Concerning the selectors with more than 2 characters, there are two examples in use in Squeak
==> logical implication (I use it a lot when writing tests cases)
<=> space ship operator
/// has been used in the past (but is rather deprecated)

What is questionable is cultural acceptance of universal meaning of a Symbol
<=> could have meant logical equivalence, but it would be pointless, because = (and == thanks to singleton) are already equivalence.
It has been expunged from Pharo to my regrets, because it is
- beautifully self defined as < = >
- culturally legitimate
- the art of original author (Travis Griggs)
There is no sacred cow, but respect of author has a value for me.

It's sure that every binary selector might be questionable, at least in core image.
For application, you never know (think DSL) we can create a lot of not completely inaesthetic ASCII styles
<|>  ><   <+> <->  /+/  |*|
For example +/- could be used for interval arithmetic (if we don't want to pay the burden of typing unicode, which ain't easy)
/\  \/  intersection and union
|\| the Nicolas operator - I didn't fin a usage for it yet ;)
etc...
So why would one want to forbid them?

For ? and ! I do not foresee elegant usage as binary, but would not miss them as regular letters eithers.
It means accepting huge???  - understand isReallyHuge :)
huge?:or!:???and: which are not less questionable.

Ideally, it should be really easy to define one's own syntax in any class (already possible with own compiler/parser/scanner/whatever), or maybe any method
I find that it's somehow more complex with the well engineered new Compiler than it was with the very hackish legacy one, but that's a detail.


and also define ^ as a binary method:

"The ^ (hat) operator is used for exponentiation as well as conjugation by group elements, and for creating free modules of tuples and matrices."

I'm not sure this is a good idea, because ^ is used also to return values.

There is no ambiguity for ^ and i have proposed that in Squeak years ago, it's a very simple change (here for legacy Compiler)

The only argument against it is that omitting the point ending last but one sentence would not be detected as invalid syntax

    self doThis.
    ^self doThat

versus

    self doThis
    ^self doThat

To address this concern, we could have rules concerning the formatting:
normally we would write

    self doThis ^ self doThat

or eventually if on several lines, we would generally indent

    self doThis
        ^ self doThat

An unusual formatting is a code smell IMO
And in fact, this is not much different from un-detecting when we send a message #self when forgetting the point

    self doThis
    self doThat

    self doThis self doThat.


A+
--
Serge Stinckwic
h

Int. Research Unit
 on Modelling/Simulation of Complex Systems (UMMISCO)
Sorbonne University
 (SU)
French National Research Institute for Sustainable Development (IRD)
U
niversity of Yaoundé I, Cameroon
"Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute."
https://twitter.com/SergeStinckwich
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I have a dream... or why I think that compatibility is an illusion and bring us to the past

ducasse
Wait I do not understand what you are saying :)
I never said that I want to forbid anything. I just say that I would like that ? is not consider as a part of a binary selector. 
Am’i clearer?

Stef


On 11 Sep 2019, at 19:48, Nicolas Cellier <[hidden email]> wrote:

Ah, and I forgot about your argumentation Stef:

you cannot forbid binary selectors altogether because some are ugly @@*+!!! (I think I read this one in Asterix le gaulois)
for the same reasons that youCanNOtfOrBIDunaYSElectORSWIthletTersBECauSESoMeaREUgly

Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 à 19:44, Nicolas Cellier <[hidden email]> a écrit :


Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 à 10:40, Serge Stinckwich <[hidden email]> a écrit :


On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 2:14 AM Gabriel Cotelli <[hidden email]> 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.
  • · 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)
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


Yes I would like to have something like that for PolyMath :-)
Is it possible to use Unicode characters for identifiers already ?

I working on the port of : https://github.com/len/Domains
to Pharo. The author modify the Cuis parser, so he can do things like that :

"⊕ is used for direct sums, ⊗ for tensor products, × for cartesian product, direct product of groups, ring products, and in general for categorical products."

Of course we want to be able to use those selectors:  ⊕  ⊗ etc...
Not using those selectors in core image is one thing, forbiding their usage for every package is another thing

Concerning the selectors with more than 2 characters, there are two examples in use in Squeak
==> logical implication (I use it a lot when writing tests cases)
<=> space ship operator
/// has been used in the past (but is rather deprecated)

What is questionable is cultural acceptance of universal meaning of a Symbol
<=> could have meant logical equivalence, but it would be pointless, because = (and == thanks to singleton) are already equivalence.
It has been expunged from Pharo to my regrets, because it is
- beautifully self defined as < = >
- culturally legitimate
- the art of original author (Travis Griggs)
There is no sacred cow, but respect of author has a value for me.

It's sure that every binary selector might be questionable, at least in core image.
For application, you never know (think DSL) we can create a lot of not completely inaesthetic ASCII styles
<|>  ><   <+> <->  /+/  |*|
For example +/- could be used for interval arithmetic (if we don't want to pay the burden of typing unicode, which ain't easy)
/\  \/  intersection and union
|\| the Nicolas operator - I didn't fin a usage for it yet ;)
etc...
So why would one want to forbid them?

For ? and ! I do not foresee elegant usage as binary, but would not miss them as regular letters eithers.
It means accepting huge???  - understand isReallyHuge :)
huge?:or!:???and: which are not less questionable.

Ideally, it should be really easy to define one's own syntax in any class (already possible with own compiler/parser/scanner/whatever), or maybe any method
I find that it's somehow more complex with the well engineered new Compiler than it was with the very hackish legacy one, but that's a detail.


and also define ^ as a binary method:

"The ^ (hat) operator is used for exponentiation as well as conjugation by group elements, and for creating free modules of tuples and matrices."

I'm not sure this is a good idea, because ^ is used also to return values.

There is no ambiguity for ^ and i have proposed that in Squeak years ago, it's a very simple change (here for legacy Compiler)

The only argument against it is that omitting the point ending last but one sentence would not be detected as invalid syntax

    self doThis.
    ^self doThat

versus

    self doThis
    ^self doThat

To address this concern, we could have rules concerning the formatting:
normally we would write

    self doThis ^ self doThat

or eventually if on several lines, we would generally indent

    self doThis
        ^ self doThat

An unusual formatting is a code smell IMO
And in fact, this is not much different from un-detecting when we send a message #self when forgetting the point

    self doThis
    self doThat

    self doThis self doThat.


A+
--
Serge Stinckwic
h

Int. Research Unit
 on Modelling/Simulation of Complex Systems (UMMISCO)
Sorbonne University
 (SU)
French National Research Institute for Sustainable Development (IRD)
U
niversity of Yaoundé I, Cameroon
"Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute."
https://twitter.com/SergeStinckwich

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I have a dream... or why I think that compatibility is an illusion and bring us to the past

Nicolas Cellier
It was just an answer to:

> Do not tell me that there is a value in these selectors?

I used the same argument for huge?:or!:???and:
But I don't think it's a valid argument: it's making induction starting with a restricted set of examples...

I also tried to answer to why and when a binary selector would be a "good" selector (elected for core libraries).
(since you gave a list of selectors which were OK)

I said that I don't really need ? nor ! in binary selectors, but neither do I in unary/keyword selectors
(though I also thought using ? for boolean answer, I don't think it's really useful)



Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 à 20:10, ducasse <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Wait I do not understand what you are saying :)
I never said that I want to forbid anything. I just say that I would like that ? is not consider as a part of a binary selector. 
Am’i clearer?

Stef


On 11 Sep 2019, at 19:48, Nicolas Cellier <[hidden email]> wrote:

Ah, and I forgot about your argumentation Stef:

you cannot forbid binary selectors altogether because some are ugly @@*+!!! (I think I read this one in Asterix le gaulois)
for the same reasons that youCanNOtfOrBIDunaYSElectORSWIthletTersBECauSESoMeaREUgly

Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 à 19:44, Nicolas Cellier <[hidden email]> a écrit :


Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 à 10:40, Serge Stinckwich <[hidden email]> a écrit :


On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 2:14 AM Gabriel Cotelli <[hidden email]> 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.
  • · 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)
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


Yes I would like to have something like that for PolyMath :-)
Is it possible to use Unicode characters for identifiers already ?

I working on the port of : https://github.com/len/Domains
to Pharo. The author modify the Cuis parser, so he can do things like that :

"⊕ is used for direct sums, ⊗ for tensor products, × for cartesian product, direct product of groups, ring products, and in general for categorical products."

Of course we want to be able to use those selectors:  ⊕  ⊗ etc...
Not using those selectors in core image is one thing, forbiding their usage for every package is another thing

Concerning the selectors with more than 2 characters, there are two examples in use in Squeak
==> logical implication (I use it a lot when writing tests cases)
<=> space ship operator
/// has been used in the past (but is rather deprecated)

What is questionable is cultural acceptance of universal meaning of a Symbol
<=> could have meant logical equivalence, but it would be pointless, because = (and == thanks to singleton) are already equivalence.
It has been expunged from Pharo to my regrets, because it is
- beautifully self defined as < = >
- culturally legitimate
- the art of original author (Travis Griggs)
There is no sacred cow, but respect of author has a value for me.

It's sure that every binary selector might be questionable, at least in core image.
For application, you never know (think DSL) we can create a lot of not completely inaesthetic ASCII styles
<|>  ><   <+> <->  /+/  |*|
For example +/- could be used for interval arithmetic (if we don't want to pay the burden of typing unicode, which ain't easy)
/\  \/  intersection and union
|\| the Nicolas operator - I didn't fin a usage for it yet ;)
etc...
So why would one want to forbid them?

For ? and ! I do not foresee elegant usage as binary, but would not miss them as regular letters eithers.
It means accepting huge???  - understand isReallyHuge :)
huge?:or!:???and: which are not less questionable.

Ideally, it should be really easy to define one's own syntax in any class (already possible with own compiler/parser/scanner/whatever), or maybe any method
I find that it's somehow more complex with the well engineered new Compiler than it was with the very hackish legacy one, but that's a detail.


and also define ^ as a binary method:

"The ^ (hat) operator is used for exponentiation as well as conjugation by group elements, and for creating free modules of tuples and matrices."

I'm not sure this is a good idea, because ^ is used also to return values.

There is no ambiguity for ^ and i have proposed that in Squeak years ago, it's a very simple change (here for legacy Compiler)

The only argument against it is that omitting the point ending last but one sentence would not be detected as invalid syntax

    self doThis.
    ^self doThat

versus

    self doThis
    ^self doThat

To address this concern, we could have rules concerning the formatting:
normally we would write

    self doThis ^ self doThat

or eventually if on several lines, we would generally indent

    self doThis
        ^ self doThat

An unusual formatting is a code smell IMO
And in fact, this is not much different from un-detecting when we send a message #self when forgetting the point

    self doThis
    self doThat

    self doThis self doThat.


A+
--
Serge Stinckwic
h

Int. Research Unit
 on Modelling/Simulation of Complex Systems (UMMISCO)
Sorbonne University
 (SU)
French National Research Institute for Sustainable Development (IRD)
U
niversity of Yaoundé I, Cameroon
"Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute."
https://twitter.com/SergeStinckwich

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I have a dream... or why I think that compatibility is an illusion and bring us to the past

Nicolas Cellier
Note that I also cared to handle ^ as binary selector for Opal
Unfortunately the issue staled (for good or bad reasons, don't know...)


Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 à 21:21, Nicolas Cellier <[hidden email]> a écrit :
It was just an answer to:

> Do not tell me that there is a value in these selectors?

I used the same argument for huge?:or!:???and:
But I don't think it's a valid argument: it's making induction starting with a restricted set of examples...

I also tried to answer to why and when a binary selector would be a "good" selector (elected for core libraries).
(since you gave a list of selectors which were OK)

I said that I don't really need ? nor ! in binary selectors, but neither do I in unary/keyword selectors
(though I also thought using ? for boolean answer, I don't think it's really useful)



Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 à 20:10, ducasse <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Wait I do not understand what you are saying :)
I never said that I want to forbid anything. I just say that I would like that ? is not consider as a part of a binary selector. 
Am’i clearer?

Stef


On 11 Sep 2019, at 19:48, Nicolas Cellier <[hidden email]> wrote:

Ah, and I forgot about your argumentation Stef:

you cannot forbid binary selectors altogether because some are ugly @@*+!!! (I think I read this one in Asterix le gaulois)
for the same reasons that youCanNOtfOrBIDunaYSElectORSWIthletTersBECauSESoMeaREUgly

Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 à 19:44, Nicolas Cellier <[hidden email]> a écrit :


Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 à 10:40, Serge Stinckwich <[hidden email]> a écrit :


On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 2:14 AM Gabriel Cotelli <[hidden email]> 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.
  • · 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)
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


Yes I would like to have something like that for PolyMath :-)
Is it possible to use Unicode characters for identifiers already ?

I working on the port of : https://github.com/len/Domains
to Pharo. The author modify the Cuis parser, so he can do things like that :

"⊕ is used for direct sums, ⊗ for tensor products, × for cartesian product, direct product of groups, ring products, and in general for categorical products."

Of course we want to be able to use those selectors:  ⊕  ⊗ etc...
Not using those selectors in core image is one thing, forbiding their usage for every package is another thing

Concerning the selectors with more than 2 characters, there are two examples in use in Squeak
==> logical implication (I use it a lot when writing tests cases)
<=> space ship operator
/// has been used in the past (but is rather deprecated)

What is questionable is cultural acceptance of universal meaning of a Symbol
<=> could have meant logical equivalence, but it would be pointless, because = (and == thanks to singleton) are already equivalence.
It has been expunged from Pharo to my regrets, because it is
- beautifully self defined as < = >
- culturally legitimate
- the art of original author (Travis Griggs)
There is no sacred cow, but respect of author has a value for me.

It's sure that every binary selector might be questionable, at least in core image.
For application, you never know (think DSL) we can create a lot of not completely inaesthetic ASCII styles
<|>  ><   <+> <->  /+/  |*|
For example +/- could be used for interval arithmetic (if we don't want to pay the burden of typing unicode, which ain't easy)
/\  \/  intersection and union
|\| the Nicolas operator - I didn't fin a usage for it yet ;)
etc...
So why would one want to forbid them?

For ? and ! I do not foresee elegant usage as binary, but would not miss them as regular letters eithers.
It means accepting huge???  - understand isReallyHuge :)
huge?:or!:???and: which are not less questionable.

Ideally, it should be really easy to define one's own syntax in any class (already possible with own compiler/parser/scanner/whatever), or maybe any method
I find that it's somehow more complex with the well engineered new Compiler than it was with the very hackish legacy one, but that's a detail.


and also define ^ as a binary method:

"The ^ (hat) operator is used for exponentiation as well as conjugation by group elements, and for creating free modules of tuples and matrices."

I'm not sure this is a good idea, because ^ is used also to return values.

There is no ambiguity for ^ and i have proposed that in Squeak years ago, it's a very simple change (here for legacy Compiler)

The only argument against it is that omitting the point ending last but one sentence would not be detected as invalid syntax

    self doThis.
    ^self doThat

versus

    self doThis
    ^self doThat

To address this concern, we could have rules concerning the formatting:
normally we would write

    self doThis ^ self doThat

or eventually if on several lines, we would generally indent

    self doThis
        ^ self doThat

An unusual formatting is a code smell IMO
And in fact, this is not much different from un-detecting when we send a message #self when forgetting the point

    self doThis
    self doThat

    self doThis self doThat.


A+
--
Serge Stinckwic
h

Int. Research Unit
 on Modelling/Simulation of Complex Systems (UMMISCO)
Sorbonne University
 (SU)
French National Research Institute for Sustainable Development (IRD)
U
niversity of Yaoundé I, Cameroon
"Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute."
https://twitter.com/SergeStinckwich

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I have a dream... or why I think that compatibility is an illusion and bring us to the past

Nicolas Cellier
And to finish with ^, hare is an older implementation

And the classical refutation (we should not bother too much about it)

Le jeu. 12 sept. 2019 à 20:37, Nicolas Cellier <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Note that I also cared to handle ^ as binary selector for Opal
Unfortunately the issue staled (for good or bad reasons, don't know...)


Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 à 21:21, Nicolas Cellier <[hidden email]> a écrit :
It was just an answer to:

> Do not tell me that there is a value in these selectors?

I used the same argument for huge?:or!:???and:
But I don't think it's a valid argument: it's making induction starting with a restricted set of examples...

I also tried to answer to why and when a binary selector would be a "good" selector (elected for core libraries).
(since you gave a list of selectors which were OK)

I said that I don't really need ? nor ! in binary selectors, but neither do I in unary/keyword selectors
(though I also thought using ? for boolean answer, I don't think it's really useful)



Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 à 20:10, ducasse <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Wait I do not understand what you are saying :)
I never said that I want to forbid anything. I just say that I would like that ? is not consider as a part of a binary selector. 
Am’i clearer?

Stef


On 11 Sep 2019, at 19:48, Nicolas Cellier <[hidden email]> wrote:

Ah, and I forgot about your argumentation Stef:

you cannot forbid binary selectors altogether because some are ugly @@*+!!! (I think I read this one in Asterix le gaulois)
for the same reasons that youCanNOtfOrBIDunaYSElectORSWIthletTersBECauSESoMeaREUgly

Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 à 19:44, Nicolas Cellier <[hidden email]> a écrit :


Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 à 10:40, Serge Stinckwich <[hidden email]> a écrit :


On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 2:14 AM Gabriel Cotelli <[hidden email]> 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.
  • · 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)
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


Yes I would like to have something like that for PolyMath :-)
Is it possible to use Unicode characters for identifiers already ?

I working on the port of : https://github.com/len/Domains
to Pharo. The author modify the Cuis parser, so he can do things like that :

"⊕ is used for direct sums, ⊗ for tensor products, × for cartesian product, direct product of groups, ring products, and in general for categorical products."

Of course we want to be able to use those selectors:  ⊕  ⊗ etc...
Not using those selectors in core image is one thing, forbiding their usage for every package is another thing

Concerning the selectors with more than 2 characters, there are two examples in use in Squeak
==> logical implication (I use it a lot when writing tests cases)
<=> space ship operator
/// has been used in the past (but is rather deprecated)

What is questionable is cultural acceptance of universal meaning of a Symbol
<=> could have meant logical equivalence, but it would be pointless, because = (and == thanks to singleton) are already equivalence.
It has been expunged from Pharo to my regrets, because it is
- beautifully self defined as < = >
- culturally legitimate
- the art of original author (Travis Griggs)
There is no sacred cow, but respect of author has a value for me.

It's sure that every binary selector might be questionable, at least in core image.
For application, you never know (think DSL) we can create a lot of not completely inaesthetic ASCII styles
<|>  ><   <+> <->  /+/  |*|
For example +/- could be used for interval arithmetic (if we don't want to pay the burden of typing unicode, which ain't easy)
/\  \/  intersection and union
|\| the Nicolas operator - I didn't fin a usage for it yet ;)
etc...
So why would one want to forbid them?

For ? and ! I do not foresee elegant usage as binary, but would not miss them as regular letters eithers.
It means accepting huge???  - understand isReallyHuge :)
huge?:or!:???and: which are not less questionable.

Ideally, it should be really easy to define one's own syntax in any class (already possible with own compiler/parser/scanner/whatever), or maybe any method
I find that it's somehow more complex with the well engineered new Compiler than it was with the very hackish legacy one, but that's a detail.


and also define ^ as a binary method:

"The ^ (hat) operator is used for exponentiation as well as conjugation by group elements, and for creating free modules of tuples and matrices."

I'm not sure this is a good idea, because ^ is used also to return values.

There is no ambiguity for ^ and i have proposed that in Squeak years ago, it's a very simple change (here for legacy Compiler)

The only argument against it is that omitting the point ending last but one sentence would not be detected as invalid syntax

    self doThis.
    ^self doThat

versus

    self doThis
    ^self doThat

To address this concern, we could have rules concerning the formatting:
normally we would write

    self doThis ^ self doThat

or eventually if on several lines, we would generally indent

    self doThis
        ^ self doThat

An unusual formatting is a code smell IMO
And in fact, this is not much different from un-detecting when we send a message #self when forgetting the point

    self doThis
    self doThat

    self doThis self doThat.


A+
--
Serge Stinckwic
h

Int. Research Unit
 on Modelling/Simulation of Complex Systems (UMMISCO)
Sorbonne University
 (SU)
French National Research Institute for Sustainable Development (IRD)
U
niversity of Yaoundé I, Cameroon
"Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute."
https://twitter.com/SergeStinckwich

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I have a dream... or why I think that compatibility is an illusion and bring us to the past

Nicolas Cellier
Funnily, in same period you could find defenders of ? in binary selectors:

and more geenral discussion about binary selectors:

Stef, u gonna hate me for living in the past ;)
But you don't have to be stuck of course :)

Le jeu. 12 sept. 2019 à 21:39, Nicolas Cellier <[hidden email]> a écrit :
And to finish with ^, hare is an older implementation

And the classical refutation (we should not bother too much about it)

Le jeu. 12 sept. 2019 à 20:37, Nicolas Cellier <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Note that I also cared to handle ^ as binary selector for Opal
Unfortunately the issue staled (for good or bad reasons, don't know...)


Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 à 21:21, Nicolas Cellier <[hidden email]> a écrit :
It was just an answer to:

> Do not tell me that there is a value in these selectors?

I used the same argument for huge?:or!:???and:
But I don't think it's a valid argument: it's making induction starting with a restricted set of examples...

I also tried to answer to why and when a binary selector would be a "good" selector (elected for core libraries).
(since you gave a list of selectors which were OK)

I said that I don't really need ? nor ! in binary selectors, but neither do I in unary/keyword selectors
(though I also thought using ? for boolean answer, I don't think it's really useful)



Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 à 20:10, ducasse <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Wait I do not understand what you are saying :)
I never said that I want to forbid anything. I just say that I would like that ? is not consider as a part of a binary selector. 
Am’i clearer?

Stef


On 11 Sep 2019, at 19:48, Nicolas Cellier <[hidden email]> wrote:

Ah, and I forgot about your argumentation Stef:

you cannot forbid binary selectors altogether because some are ugly @@*+!!! (I think I read this one in Asterix le gaulois)
for the same reasons that youCanNOtfOrBIDunaYSElectORSWIthletTersBECauSESoMeaREUgly

Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 à 19:44, Nicolas Cellier <[hidden email]> a écrit :


Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 à 10:40, Serge Stinckwich <[hidden email]> a écrit :


On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 2:14 AM Gabriel Cotelli <[hidden email]> 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.
  • · 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)
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


Yes I would like to have something like that for PolyMath :-)
Is it possible to use Unicode characters for identifiers already ?

I working on the port of : https://github.com/len/Domains
to Pharo. The author modify the Cuis parser, so he can do things like that :

"⊕ is used for direct sums, ⊗ for tensor products, × for cartesian product, direct product of groups, ring products, and in general for categorical products."

Of course we want to be able to use those selectors:  ⊕  ⊗ etc...
Not using those selectors in core image is one thing, forbiding their usage for every package is another thing

Concerning the selectors with more than 2 characters, there are two examples in use in Squeak
==> logical implication (I use it a lot when writing tests cases)
<=> space ship operator
/// has been used in the past (but is rather deprecated)

What is questionable is cultural acceptance of universal meaning of a Symbol
<=> could have meant logical equivalence, but it would be pointless, because = (and == thanks to singleton) are already equivalence.
It has been expunged from Pharo to my regrets, because it is
- beautifully self defined as < = >
- culturally legitimate
- the art of original author (Travis Griggs)
There is no sacred cow, but respect of author has a value for me.

It's sure that every binary selector might be questionable, at least in core image.
For application, you never know (think DSL) we can create a lot of not completely inaesthetic ASCII styles
<|>  ><   <+> <->  /+/  |*|
For example +/- could be used for interval arithmetic (if we don't want to pay the burden of typing unicode, which ain't easy)
/\  \/  intersection and union
|\| the Nicolas operator - I didn't fin a usage for it yet ;)
etc...
So why would one want to forbid them?

For ? and ! I do not foresee elegant usage as binary, but would not miss them as regular letters eithers.
It means accepting huge???  - understand isReallyHuge :)
huge?:or!:???and: which are not less questionable.

Ideally, it should be really easy to define one's own syntax in any class (already possible with own compiler/parser/scanner/whatever), or maybe any method
I find that it's somehow more complex with the well engineered new Compiler than it was with the very hackish legacy one, but that's a detail.


and also define ^ as a binary method:

"The ^ (hat) operator is used for exponentiation as well as conjugation by group elements, and for creating free modules of tuples and matrices."

I'm not sure this is a good idea, because ^ is used also to return values.

There is no ambiguity for ^ and i have proposed that in Squeak years ago, it's a very simple change (here for legacy Compiler)

The only argument against it is that omitting the point ending last but one sentence would not be detected as invalid syntax

    self doThis.
    ^self doThat

versus

    self doThis
    ^self doThat

To address this concern, we could have rules concerning the formatting:
normally we would write

    self doThis ^ self doThat

or eventually if on several lines, we would generally indent

    self doThis
        ^ self doThat

An unusual formatting is a code smell IMO
And in fact, this is not much different from un-detecting when we send a message #self when forgetting the point

    self doThis
    self doThat

    self doThis self doThat.


A+
--
Serge Stinckwic
h

Int. Research Unit
 on Modelling/Simulation of Complex Systems (UMMISCO)
Sorbonne University
 (SU)
French National Research Institute for Sustainable Development (IRD)
U
niversity of Yaoundé I, Cameroon
"Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute."
https://twitter.com/SergeStinckwich

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Allow selected special characters as part of unary and keyword selectors?

Mariano Martinez Peck
In reply to this post by ducasse


On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 4:10 AM ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:


> On 11 Sep 2019, at 04:07, James Foster <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Would use of ? and ! in unary/keyword selectors be convention or somehow required? If simply convention, then we should start with renaming testing methods to be named is* or has*.
>       flag1 := anInteger even.                “not good"
>       flag2 := anInteger isEven.      “better"
>       flag3 := anInteger even?.       “how much better?”
>       flag4 := #(1 2 3) includes?: 2. “how much better?”

I think that I would use ? mainly for unary message

Now I’m sure that if you look carefully some people use

        include
                for the action
        includes
                for the tests

I took include as an example and this is super not intention revealing.

>> lineUpBlockBrackets

        lineUpBlockBrackets?
        Now I will rewrite them all as shouldLineUpBlockBrackets or isLineUpBlockBrackets and to me for unary message ? makes it a lot better.


Hi Stef,

I have been facing this ambiguity a lot too. And my workaround, most of the times, was also to prefer the "question" method with #should. #is just doesn't sound right in my cases, but #should does sound good in most of them. I would still like to find a better one, but for the moment, in my recent years, I am stuck with #should.

--
Mariano Martinez Peck
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Allow selected special characters as part of unary and keyword selectors?

Tim Mackinnon
+1 for #shouldXxx I recall I use it a lot too, and #isXxx where that reads better but am struggling for examples.

Tim

Sent from my iPhone

On 13 Sep 2019, at 02:37, Mariano Martinez Peck <[hidden email]> wrote:



On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 4:10 AM ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:


> On 11 Sep 2019, at 04:07, James Foster <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Would use of ? and ! in unary/keyword selectors be convention or somehow required? If simply convention, then we should start with renaming testing methods to be named is* or has*.
>       flag1 := anInteger even.                “not good"
>       flag2 := anInteger isEven.      “better"
>       flag3 := anInteger even?.       “how much better?”
>       flag4 := #(1 2 3) includes?: 2. “how much better?”

I think that I would use ? mainly for unary message

Now I’m sure that if you look carefully some people use

        include
                for the action
        includes
                for the tests

I took include as an example and this is super not intention revealing.

>> lineUpBlockBrackets

        lineUpBlockBrackets?
        Now I will rewrite them all as shouldLineUpBlockBrackets or isLineUpBlockBrackets and to me for unary message ? makes it a lot better.


Hi Stef,

I have been facing this ambiguity a lot too. And my workaround, most of the times, was also to prefer the "question" method with #should. #is just doesn't sound right in my cases, but #should does sound good in most of them. I would still like to find a better one, but for the moment, in my recent years, I am stuck with #should.

--
Mariano Martinez Peck
12