Smalltalk › ESUG

Re: destructDo:

‹ Previous Topic Next Topic ›
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
♦
♦
 30 messages Options
12
ESUG mailing list
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
♦
♦
|

Re: destructDo:

ESUG mailing list
intention revealing trumps brevity

Am Sonntag, 29. März 2020, 00:58:49 MEZ hat Christian Haider <[hidden email]> Folgendes geschrieben:


Not bad! Captures the semantics nicely.

Just a bit long

 

Von: Esug-list <[hidden email]> Im Auftrag von Bert Freudenberg
Gesendet: Sonntag, 29. März 2020 00:12
An: [hidden email]
Betreff: Re: [Esug-list] destructDo:

 

On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 11:27 AM Pape, Tobias <[hidden email]> wrote:

What about

        ^stringsOfLine asComponentsIn: [:ignore :string2 :string3 :string4 |
                self produktbereich: string2 profitcenter: string3 bezeichnung: string4]

?

Best regards
        -Tobias

 

Agreed, "...In:" is better than "...Do" because the latter implies iteration in Smalltalk. (never mind ifNotNilDo: which broke the convention)

 

And since block arguments are called "arguments" how about

 

aCollection asArgumentsIn: [:arg1 :arg2 :arg3 | ... ]

 

- Bert -

 

PS: Happy Covid Bike Shedding ;)

_______________________________________________
Esug-list mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org

_______________________________________________
Esug-list mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
Tim Mackinnon
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
♦
♦
|

Re: destructDo:

Tim Mackinnon
Agree with intention revealing - #argumentsIn: would contract it a bit more (not sure the as strictly needed as we aren’t returning a result). And #argsIn: might be a bit too concise.

Like this proposal though.

Tim

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020, at 2:28 PM, Helge Nowak via Esug-list wrote:

intention revealing trumps brevity

Am Sonntag, 29. März 2020, 00:58:49 MEZ hat Christian Haider <[hidden email]> Folgendes geschrieben:


Not bad! Captures the semantics nicely.

Just a bit long

 


Von: Esug-list <[hidden email]> Im Auftrag von Bert Freudenberg
Gesendet: Sonntag, 29. März 2020 00:12
Betreff: Re: [Esug-list] destructDo:


 

On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 11:27 AM Pape, Tobias <[hidden email]> wrote:


What about

        ^stringsOfLine asComponentsIn: [:ignore :string2 :string3 :string4 |
                self produktbereich: string2 profitcenter: string3 bezeichnung: string4]

?

Best regards
        -Tobias


 

Agreed, "...In:" is better than "...Do" because the latter implies iteration in Smalltalk. (never mind ifNotNilDo: which broke the convention)

 

And since block arguments are called "arguments" how about

 

aCollection asArgumentsIn: [:arg1 :arg2 :arg3 | ... ]

 

- Bert -

 

PS: Happy Covid Bike Shedding ;)

_______________________________________________
Esug-list mailing list
_______________________________________________
Esug-list mailing list
http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org



_______________________________________________
Esug-list mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
Bruce Badger
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
♦
♦
|

Re: destructDo:

Bruce Badger
We write code once, but read it many times.  Given the relatively few times I would be using this (rather nice) thing, I'd be happy to type the full:

asArgumentsIn:

Christian, congratulations on coming up with something to get us all thinking and talking.  Good timing too :-/

Very best wishes,
    Bruce

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 at 15:24, Tim Mackinnon <[hidden email]> wrote:
Agree with intention revealing - #argumentsIn: would contract it a bit more (not sure the as strictly needed as we aren’t returning a result). And #argsIn: might be a bit too concise.

Like this proposal though.

Tim

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020, at 2:28 PM, Helge Nowak via Esug-list wrote:

intention revealing trumps brevity

Am Sonntag, 29. März 2020, 00:58:49 MEZ hat Christian Haider <[hidden email]> Folgendes geschrieben:


Not bad! Captures the semantics nicely.

Just a bit long

 


Von: Esug-list <[hidden email]> Im Auftrag von Bert Freudenberg
Gesendet: Sonntag, 29. März 2020 00:12
Betreff: Re: [Esug-list] destructDo:


 

On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 11:27 AM Pape, Tobias <[hidden email]> wrote:


What about

        ^stringsOfLine asComponentsIn: [:ignore :string2 :string3 :string4 |
                self produktbereich: string2 profitcenter: string3 bezeichnung: string4]

?

Best regards
        -Tobias


 

Agreed, "...In:" is better than "...Do" because the latter implies iteration in Smalltalk. (never mind ifNotNilDo: which broke the convention)

 

And since block arguments are called "arguments" how about

 

aCollection asArgumentsIn: [:arg1 :arg2 :arg3 | ... ]

 

- Bert -

 

PS: Happy Covid Bike Shedding ;)

_______________________________________________
Esug-list mailing list
_______________________________________________
Esug-list mailing list


_______________________________________________
Esug-list mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org

_______________________________________________
Esug-list mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
Martin McClure-5
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
♦
♦
|

Re: destructDo:

Martin McClure-5
After thinking about this message some more, it seemed to me that it was easier to come up with a good intention-revealing name if the block were the receiver and the array were the argument. It would be some kind of #valueWithArguments: selector. So I looked to see whether there was already such a thing, and sure enough, in Pharo there is #valueWithPossibleArgs:.

#valueWithPossibleArgs: will accept arrays (and I hope any SequenceableCollection) of any size -- trimming the end off if too large, padding with nils if too short.

On the principle of "if it's easy to come up with a good name, the design is probably pretty good" could this possibly be a better solution?

Regards,
-Martin

On 3/29/20 7:50 AM, Bruce Badger wrote:
We write code once, but read it many times.  Given the relatively few times I would be using this (rather nice) thing, I'd be happy to type the full:

asArgumentsIn:

Christian, congratulations on coming up with something to get us all thinking and talking.  Good timing too :-/

Very best wishes,
    Bruce

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 at 15:24, Tim Mackinnon [hidden email] wrote:
Agree with intention revealing - #argumentsIn: would contract it a bit more (not sure the as strictly needed as we aren’t returning a result). And #argsIn: might be a bit too concise.

Like this proposal though.

Tim

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020, at 2:28 PM, Helge Nowak via Esug-list wrote:

intention revealing trumps brevity

Am Sonntag, 29. März 2020, 00:58:49 MEZ hat Christian Haider <[hidden email]> Folgendes geschrieben:


Not bad! Captures the semantics nicely.

Just a bit long

 


Von: Esug-list <[hidden email]> Im Auftrag von Bert Freudenberg
Gesendet: Sonntag, 29. März 2020 00:12
Betreff: Re: [Esug-list] destructDo:


 

On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 11:27 AM Pape, Tobias <[hidden email]> wrote:


What about

        ^stringsOfLine asComponentsIn: [:ignore :string2 :string3 :string4 |
                self produktbereich: string2 profitcenter: string3 bezeichnung: string4]

?

Best regards
        -Tobias


 

Agreed, "...In:" is better than "...Do" because the latter implies iteration in Smalltalk. (never mind ifNotNilDo: which broke the convention)

 

And since block arguments are called "arguments" how about

 

aCollection asArgumentsIn: [:arg1 :arg2 :arg3 | ... ]

 

- Bert -

 

PS: Happy Covid Bike Shedding ;)

_______________________________________________
Esug-list mailing list
_______________________________________________
Esug-list mailing list


_______________________________________________
Esug-list mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org

_______________________________________________
Esug-list mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org


_______________________________________________
Esug-list mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
Bert Freudenberg
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
♦
♦
|

Re: destructDo:

Bert Freudenberg
In reply to this post by Christian Haider
If you’re looking for a short selector that doesn’t reveal meaning by using more words, I would borrow a term that is used elsewhere, like your “destructure”. Various programming language communities have terms like “expand”, “unpack”, “spread”, or  “splat” for using a sequence as separate arguments. Maybe “spread” would work? 

- Bert -
 

On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 16:58 Christian Haider <[hidden email]> wrote:

Not bad! Captures the semantics nicely.

Just a bit long

 

Von: Esug-list <[hidden email]> Im Auftrag von Bert Freudenberg
Gesendet: Sonntag, 29. März 2020 00:12
An: [hidden email]
Betreff: Re: [Esug-list] destructDo:

 

On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 11:27 AM Pape, Tobias <[hidden email]> wrote:

What about

        ^stringsOfLine asComponentsIn: [:ignore :string2 :string3 :string4 |
                self produktbereich: string2 profitcenter: string3 bezeichnung: string4]

?

Best regards
        -Tobias

 

Agreed, "...In:" is better than "...Do" because the latter implies iteration in Smalltalk. (never mind ifNotNilDo: which broke the convention)

 

And since block arguments are called "arguments" how about

 

aCollection asArgumentsIn: [:arg1 :arg2 :arg3 | ... ]

 

- Bert -

 

PS: Happy Covid Bike Shedding ;)

--
-- 
Dr. Bert Freudenberg
7275 Franklin Avenue #210
Los Angeles CA 90046
+1 (818) 482-3991
 

_______________________________________________
Esug-list mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
Christian Haider
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
♦
♦
|

Re: destructDo:

Christian Haider
In reply to this post by Martin McClure-5

Hello Martin,

 

You are right, but I disagree J.

It started by using #valueWithArguments: more often. I find it very bulky, hard to format nicely and difficult to read. This is because the block is the receiver. As last argument, the world looks brighter, because at the end the block formats better.

Compare:

                ^aList asArgumentsIn: [:a :b :c |

                               | x y |

                               x := a send: b with: c.

y := ‘multiline block’.

x printString, y]

with:

                ^[:a :b :c |

                               | x y |

                               x := a send: b with: c.

y := ‘multiline block’.

x printString, y

] valueWithArguments: aList

 

I see the second pattern used in two subsystems in VW, one also uses #cull…

Maybe I find it more difficult to read the second pattern, because the argument list is very far away from the list it associates with.

 

I think that I will settle with #asArgumentsIn: and see how it reads in real life.

As a shortcut, I can imagine an operator… (too bad that VW doesn’t support Unicode for operators…)

 

Thank you!

 

 

Von: Esug-list <[hidden email]> Im Auftrag von Martin McClure
Gesendet: Sonntag, 29. März 2020 17:50
An: Bruce Badger <[hidden email]>; Tim Mackinnon <[hidden email]>
Cc: [hidden email] Members <[hidden email]>
Betreff: Re: [Esug-list] destructDo:

 

After thinking about this message some more, it seemed to me that it was easier to come up with a good intention-revealing name if the block were the receiver and the array were the argument. It would be some kind of #valueWithArguments: selector. So I looked to see whether there was already such a thing, and sure enough, in Pharo there is #valueWithPossibleArgs:.

#valueWithPossibleArgs: will accept arrays (and I hope any SequenceableCollection) of any size -- trimming the end off if too large, padding with nils if too short.

On the principle of "if it's easy to come up with a good name, the design is probably pretty good" could this possibly be a better solution?

Regards,
-Martin

On 3/29/20 7:50 AM, Bruce Badger wrote:

We write code once, but read it many times.  Given the relatively few times I would be using this (rather nice) thing, I'd be happy to type the full:

 

asArgumentsIn:

 

Christian, congratulations on coming up with something to get us all thinking and talking.  Good timing too :-/

 

Very best wishes,

    Bruce

 

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 at 15:24, Tim Mackinnon [hidden email] wrote:

Agree with intention revealing - #argumentsIn: would contract it a bit more (not sure the as strictly needed as we aren’t returning a result). And #argsIn: might be a bit too concise.

 

Like this proposal though.

 

Tim

 

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020, at 2:28 PM, Helge Nowak via Esug-list wrote:

 

intention revealing trumps brevity

 

Am Sonntag, 29. März 2020, 00:58:49 MEZ hat Christian Haider <[hidden email]> Folgendes geschrieben:

 

 

Not bad! Captures the semantics nicely.

Just a bit long

 

 

Von: Esug-list <[hidden email]> Im Auftrag von Bert Freudenberg

Gesendet: Sonntag, 29. März 2020 00:12

Betreff: Re: [Esug-list] destructDo:

 

 

On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 11:27 AM Pape, Tobias <[hidden email]> wrote:

 

What about

 

        ^stringsOfLine asComponentsIn: [:ignore :string2 :string3 :string4 |

                self produktbereich: string2 profitcenter: string3 bezeichnung: string4]

 

?

 

Best regards

        -Tobias

 

 

Agreed, "...In:" is better than "...Do" because the latter implies iteration in Smalltalk. (never mind ifNotNilDo: which broke the convention)

 

And since block arguments are called "arguments" how about

 

aCollection asArgumentsIn: [:arg1 :arg2 :arg3 | ... ]

 

- Bert -

 

PS: Happy Covid Bike Shedding ;)

_______________________________________________

Esug-list mailing list

_______________________________________________

Esug-list mailing list

 

 

_______________________________________________
Esug-list mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org



_______________________________________________
Esug-list mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org

 


_______________________________________________
Esug-list mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
Christian Haider
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
♦
♦
|

Re: destructDo:

Christian Haider
In reply to this post by Tim Mackinnon

Hi Tim,

 

I think that the „as” is essential and asArgsIn: would read as nice…

 

Von: Esug-list <[hidden email]> Im Auftrag von Tim Mackinnon
Gesendet: Sonntag, 29. März 2020 16:24
An: [hidden email]
Betreff: Re: [Esug-list] destructDo:

 

Agree with intention revealing - #argumentsIn: would contract it a bit more (not sure the as strictly needed as we aren’t returning a result). And #argsIn: might be a bit too concise.

 

Like this proposal though.

 

Tim

 

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020, at 2:28 PM, Helge Nowak via Esug-list wrote:

 

intention revealing trumps brevity

 

Am Sonntag, 29. März 2020, 00:58:49 MEZ hat Christian Haider <[hidden email]> Folgendes geschrieben:

 

 

Not bad! Captures the semantics nicely.

Just a bit long

 

 

Von: Esug-list <[hidden email]> Im Auftrag von Bert Freudenberg

Gesendet: Sonntag, 29. März 2020 00:12

Betreff: Re: [Esug-list] destructDo:

 

 

On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 11:27 AM Pape, Tobias <[hidden email]> wrote:

 

What about

 

        ^stringsOfLine asComponentsIn: [:ignore :string2 :string3 :string4 |

                self produktbereich: string2 profitcenter: string3 bezeichnung: string4]

 

?

 

Best regards

        -Tobias

 

 

Agreed, "...In:" is better than "...Do" because the latter implies iteration in Smalltalk. (never mind ifNotNilDo: which broke the convention)

 

And since block arguments are called "arguments" how about

 

aCollection asArgumentsIn: [:arg1 :arg2 :arg3 | ... ]

 

- Bert -

 

PS: Happy Covid Bike Shedding ;)

_______________________________________________

Esug-list mailing list

_______________________________________________

Esug-list mailing list

 

 


_______________________________________________
Esug-list mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
Pape, Tobias
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
♦
♦
|

Re: destructDo:

Pape, Tobias

> On 29.03.2020, at 18:23, Christian Haider <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi Tim,
>  
> I think that the „as” is essential and asArgsIn: would read as nice…

But why contract the name? what would we gain?

Best regards
        -Tobias

>  
> Von: Esug-list <[hidden email]> Im Auftrag von Tim Mackinnon
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 29. März 2020 16:24
> An: [hidden email]
> Betreff: Re: [Esug-list] destructDo:
>  
> Agree with intention revealing - #argumentsIn: would contract it a bit more (not sure the as strictly needed as we aren’t returning a result). And #argsIn: might be a bit too concise.
>  
> Like this proposal though.
>  
> Tim
>  
> On Sun, 29 Mar 2020, at 2:28 PM, Helge Nowak via Esug-list wrote:
>>  
>> intention revealing trumps brevity
>>  
>> Am Sonntag, 29. März 2020, 00:58:49 MEZ hat Christian Haider <[hidden email]> Folgendes geschrieben:
>>  
>>  
>> Not bad! Captures the semantics nicely.
>>
>> Just a bit long
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>> Von: Esug-list <[hidden email]> Im Auftrag von Bert Freudenberg
>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 29. März 2020 00:12
>> An: [hidden email]
>> Betreff: Re: [Esug-list] destructDo:
>>  
>>  
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 11:27 AM Pape, Tobias <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> What about
>>>  
>>>         ^stringsOfLine asComponentsIn: [:ignore :string2 :string3 :string4 |
>>>                 self produktbereich: string2 profitcenter: string3 bezeichnung: string4]
>>>  
>>> ?
>>>  
>>> Best regards
>>>         -Tobias
>>>  
>>  
>>
>> Agreed, "...In:" is better than "...Do" because the latter implies iteration in Smalltalk. (never mind ifNotNilDo: which broke the convention)
>>
>>  
>>
>> And since block arguments are called "arguments" how about
>>
>>  
>>
>> aCollection asArgumentsIn: [:arg1 :arg2 :arg3 | ... ]
>>
>>  
>>
>> - Bert -
>>
>>  
>>
>> PS: Happy Covid Bike Shedding ;)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Esug-list mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> Esug-list mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
>>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Esug-list mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org


--
Tobias Pape
Software Architecture Group | http://www.hpi.uni-potsdam.de/swa/
Future SOC Lab | https://hpi.de/future-soc-lab

Hasso-Plattner-Institut für Digital Engineering gGmbH | Universität Potsdam
Prof.-Dr.-Helmert-Str. 2-3, D-14482 Potsdam, Germany
Amtsgericht Potsdam, HRB 12184 | Geschäftsführung: Prof. Dr. Christoph Meinel

_______________________________________________
Esug-list mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
ESUG mailing list
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
♦
♦
|

Re: destructDo:

ESUG mailing list
In reply to this post by Martin McClure-5
Dear Christian and Martin et al.,
    one can simply reverse-ordering valueWith{Possible}Arguments: into
argumentsWithValue: - variants include asArgumentsEvaluating:,
useAsArgumentsIn:, asPossibleArgumentsTo: and etc.

Would it be too gross an abuse of the term to shorten 'possible' by
using 'cull' instead - cullArgumentsIn:, asArgumentsCulledEvaluating: ,
... ?  (I'm ready to respect in advance any purist who would rather type
the longer word. :-) )

If Christian finds it makes for cleaner code, then I'm all for it.  And
I endorse Tim's recommendation for clarity over brevity.  Making it look
something like a reversed valueWith{Possible}Arguments: is one form of
clarity.

                    Just my 0.02p
                         Niall Ross


Martin McClure wrote:

> After thinking about this message some more, it seemed to me that it
> was easier to come up with a good intention-revealing name if the
> block were the receiver and the array were the argument. It would be
> some kind of #valueWithArguments: selector. So I looked to see whether
> there was already such a thing, and sure enough, in Pharo there is
> #valueWithPossibleArgs:.
>
> #valueWithPossibleArgs: will accept arrays (and I hope any
> SequenceableCollection) of any size -- trimming the end off if too
> large, padding with nils if too short.
>
> On the principle of "if it's easy to come up with a good name, the
> design is probably pretty good" could this possibly be a better solution?
>
> Regards,
> -Martin
>
> On 3/29/20 7:50 AM, Bruce Badger wrote:
>
>> We write code once, but read it many times.  Given the relatively few
>> times I would be using this (rather nice) thing, I'd be happy to type
>> the full:
>>
>> asArgumentsIn:
>>
>> Christian, congratulations on coming up with something to get us all
>> thinking and talking.  Good timing too :-/
>>
>> Very best wishes,
>>     Bruce
>>
>> On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 at 15:24, Tim Mackinnon <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>     Agree with intention revealing - #argumentsIn: would contract it
>>     a bit more (not sure the as strictly needed as we aren’t
>>     returning a result). And #argsIn: might be a bit too concise.
>>
>>     Like this proposal though.
>>
>>     Tim
>>
>>     On Sun, 29 Mar 2020, at 2:28 PM, Helge Nowak via Esug-list wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>     intention revealing trumps brevity
>>>
>>>     Am Sonntag, 29. März 2020, 00:58:49 MEZ hat Christian Haider
>>>     <[hidden email]
>>>     <mailto:[hidden email]>> Folgendes
>>>     geschrieben:
>>>
>>>
>>>     Not bad! Captures the semantics nicely.
>>>
>>>     Just a bit long
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>
>>>     *Von:* Esug-list <[hidden email]
>>>     <mailto:[hidden email]>> *Im Auftrag von *Bert
>>>     Freudenberg
>>>     *Gesendet:* Sonntag, 29. März 2020 00:12
>>>     *An:* [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>     *Betreff:* Re: [Esug-list] destructDo:
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>     On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 11:27 AM Pape, Tobias
>>>     <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>         What about
>>>
>>>                 ^stringsOfLine asComponentsIn: [:ignore :string2
>>>         :string3 :string4 |
>>>                         self produktbereich: string2 profitcenter:
>>>         string3 bezeichnung: string4]
>>>
>>>         ?
>>>
>>>         Best regards
>>>                 -Tobias
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>     Agreed, "...In:" is better than "...Do" because the latter
>>>     implies iteration in Smalltalk. (never mind ifNotNilDo: which
>>>     broke the convention)
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>     And since block arguments are called "arguments" how about
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>     aCollection asArgumentsIn: [:arg1 :arg2 :arg3 | ... ]
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>     - Bert -
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>     PS: Happy Covid Bike Shedding ;)
>>>
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     Esug-list mailing list
>>>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>     http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     Esug-list mailing list
>>>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>     http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
>>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Esug-list mailing list
>>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>     http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Esug-list mailing list
>>[hidden email]
>>http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
>>    
>>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Esug-list mailing list
>[hidden email]
>http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
>  
>

_______________________________________________
Esug-list mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
Reinout Heeck-3
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
♦
♦
|

Re: destructDo:

Reinout Heeck-3
In reply to this post by NorbertHartl

For stuffing stuff towards a block we can take inspiration from the
#inject:into: selector.

         'how did that go?' into: [:firstCharacter :secondCharacter|
self halt ]


R

-




_______________________________________________
Esug-list mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
12
Free forum by Nabble Edit this page