FWIW, gst is compatible with VW. I'll test
#indexOfSubcollection:startingAt: later. Paolo _______________________________________________ seaside-dev mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/seaside-dev |
No, I'm only convinced that it different on different platforms, so it is a portability issue. I'm happy with resolution in either direction ( '123' startsWith: '' returns ture or false) since VA Smalltalk never implemented this method, although, since I've implemented the method in terms of #indexOf:, I guess I prefer the current Pharo and VA Smalltalk implementation since it seems more consistent., but I just think it needs to be consistent if Seaside is going to use it.
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 7:46 PM, <[hidden email]> wrote:
-- John O'Keefe [|], Principal Smalltalk Architect, Instantiations Inc. _______________________________________________ seaside-dev mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/seaside-dev |
On 03/07/2010 03:45 PM, John O'Keefe wrote:
> No, I'm only convinced that it different on different platforms, so it > is a portability issue. I'm happy with resolution in either direction ( > '123' startsWith: '' returns ture or false) since VA Smalltalk never > implemented this method, although, since I've implemented the method in > terms of #indexOf: ... isn't this horribly inefficient, as it is at least O(m+n) rather than O(min(m,n))? I guess I prefer the current Pharo and VA Smalltalk > implementation since it seems more consistent., but I just think it > needs to be consistent if Seaside is going to use it. FWIW I now checked #indexOfSubCollection: in GST and it gives an out of bounds error if asked for the index of an empty collection. I think #startsWith:/#endsWith: are substantially different from #indexOfSubCollection:, in that a limit value is clear for starting/ending with an empty string, but much less for "where is an empty string". Paolo _______________________________________________ seaside-dev mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/seaside-dev |
In reply to this post by John O'Keefe-2
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 2:45 PM, John O'Keefe
<[hidden email]> wrote: > No, I'm only convinced that it different on different platforms, so it is a > portability issue. I'm happy with resolution in either direction ( '123' > startsWith: '' returns ture or false) since VA Smalltalk never implemented > this method, although, since I've implemented the method in terms of > #indexOf:, I guess I prefer the current Pharo and VA Smalltalk > implementation since it seems more consistent., but I just think it needs to > be consistent if Seaside is going to use it. Ok, well I agree with that - we need to standardize one way or another and I'm not sure of the best choice. The alternatives are not to use it or to define a different selector (I see in my notes that we were originally proposing that because #beginsWith: is a bit ambiguous as to whether it should expect an item or a collection). On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Paolo Bonzini <[hidden email]> wrote: > FWIW I now checked #indexOfSubCollection: in GST and it gives an out of > bounds error if asked for the index of an empty collection. > > I think #startsWith:/#endsWith: are substantially different from > #indexOfSubCollection:, in that a limit value is clear for starting/ending > with an empty string, but much less for "where is an empty string". Sure, they're different, but since #indexOfSubCollection: is supposed to return the index of the first match, it's a bit weird for #beginsWith: to return true in any case where #indexOfSubCollection: does not return 1, no? Similarly, if #endsWith: returns true, you'd expect #indexOfSubCollection: to return 1 < index < (length(collection)-length(subcollection)). So while I'm not saying #beginsWith: '' should not return true, I am saying that if it *should* return true, then there is a bug in the ANSI definition of #indexOfSubCollection:. And one way or another, I'm pretty sure the two implementations should align. Julian _______________________________________________ seaside-dev mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/seaside-dev |
In reply to this post by Paolo Bonzini-2
I meant to say 'indexOfSubcollection:', not 'indexOf:'.
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 10:05 AM, Paolo Bonzini <[hidden email]> wrote:
-- John O'Keefe [|], Principal Smalltalk Architect, Instantiations Inc. _______________________________________________ seaside-dev mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/seaside-dev |
In reply to this post by Julian Fitzell-2
On 03/07/2010 04:44 PM, Julian Fitzell wrote:
> Sure, they're different, but since #indexOfSubCollection: is supposed > to return the index of the first match, it's a bit weird for > #beginsWith: to return true in any case where #indexOfSubCollection: > does not return 1, no? Similarly, if #endsWith: returns true, you'd > expect #indexOfSubCollection: to return 1< index< > (length(collection)-length(subcollection)). > > So while I'm not saying #beginsWith: '' should not return true, I am > saying that if it*should* return true, then there is a bug in the > ANSI definition of #indexOfSubCollection:. And one way or another, I'm > pretty sure the two implementations should align. Makes sense, yeah. Guess I'll fix GST. Paolo _______________________________________________ seaside-dev mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/seaside-dev |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |