Smalltalk string API
Locked
 
|
I started referencing Smalltalk idioms at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_programming_languages_(string_functions) I could have focused on ANSI but have chosen Squeak/Pharo. Feel free to correct me and to complete me. This is a very enlighting exercize, especially for pointing when API turns to be not that bright. During my perigrination, I notably noticed this: #compare: returns 1, 2, or 3 : this is both very object oriented, very intuitive and very standard and the rest of the world is stupid, unless... #findLastOccurrenceOfString:startingAt: in its current form is stupid to my taste, because 1) implementation is inefficient 2) the startingAt: only skip the beginning of the string which seems odd for a rfind operation I would rather expect this kind of usage: last := aString findLastOccurrenceOfString: 'to' startingAt: aString size. lastButOne := aString findLastOccurrenceOfString: 'to' startingAt: last - 1. The CamelCase is sometimes abusive like #includesSubString: There is no format. I know, purists will tell me that encoding a format in a cryptic string is not in the Smalltalk spirit, but please then tell me how to specify a formatting efficiently and also remove cryptic regex encoding (a pity, it's not in trunk). I let a few holes (split/join etc...) Cheers |
|
|
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Nicolas Cellier
<[hidden email]> wrote: > I started referencing Smalltalk idioms at > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_programming_languages_(string_functions) > I could have focused on ANSI but have chosen Squeak/Pharo. Feel free > to correct me and to complete me. > > This is a very enlighting exercize, especially for pointing when API > turns to be not that bright. > During my perigrination, I notably noticed this: > > #compare: returns 1, 2, or 3 : this is both very object oriented, very > intuitive and very standard and the rest of the world is stupid, > unless... Yes, really stupid, but maybe Squeak/Pharo should align here to the rest of the world or better, remove this method. We could use comparaison methods instead: <, >, ... -- Serge Stinckwich UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC), Hanoi, Vietnam Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk http://doesnotunderstand.org/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nicolas Cellier
Hi nicolas
propose something and we can react :) I'm busy with project proposal, teaching and 1.2 right now. Stef On Feb 16, 2011, at 10:24 AM, Nicolas Cellier wrote: > I started referencing Smalltalk idioms at > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_programming_languages_(string_functions) > I could have focused on ANSI but have chosen Squeak/Pharo. Feel free > to correct me and to complete me. > > This is a very enlighting exercize, especially for pointing when API > turns to be not that bright. > During my perigrination, I notably noticed this: > > #compare: returns 1, 2, or 3 : this is both very object oriented, very > intuitive and very standard and the rest of the world is stupid, > unless... > > #findLastOccurrenceOfString:startingAt: in its current form is stupid > to my taste, because > 1) implementation is inefficient > 2) the startingAt: only skip the beginning of the string which seems > odd for a rfind operation > I would rather expect this kind of usage: > last := aString findLastOccurrenceOfString: 'to' startingAt: aString size. > lastButOne := aString findLastOccurrenceOfString: 'to' startingAt: last - 1. > > The CamelCase is sometimes abusive like #includesSubString: > > There is no format. I know, purists will tell me that encoding a > format in a cryptic string is not in the Smalltalk spirit, but please > then tell me how to specify a formatting efficiently and also remove > cryptic regex encoding (a pity, it's not in trunk). > > I let a few holes (split/join etc...) > > Cheers > |
Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Smalltalk string API
|
|
In reply to this post by SergeStinckwich
On 16.02.2011, at 10:39, Serge Stinckwich wrote: > On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Nicolas Cellier > <[hidden email]> wrote: >> I started referencing Smalltalk idioms at >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_programming_languages_(string_functions) >> I could have focused on ANSI but have chosen Squeak/Pharo. Feel free >> to correct me and to complete me. >> >> This is a very enlighting exercize, especially for pointing when API >> turns to be not that bright. >> During my perigrination, I notably noticed this: >> >> #compare: returns 1, 2, or 3 : this is both very object oriented, very >> intuitive and very standard and the rest of the world is stupid, >> unless... > > Yes, really stupid, but maybe Squeak/Pharo should align here to the > rest of the world or > better, remove this method. We could use comparaison methods instead: <, >, ... It is a low-level primitive, better indeed to use those operators instead, not call the compare* methods directly. For case-insensitive comparisons you should use e.g. caseInsensitiveLessOrEqual:. If we want to provide a method that answers -1, 0, and 1 I'd leave the #compare: family alone, and instead add the operator <=> as in Ruby (which would be case-sensitive). My 0.02€ - Bert - |
Re: [squeak-dev] Smalltalk string API
|
|
In reply to this post by Nicolas Cellier
Hi,
Am 2011-02-16 um 10:24 schrieb Nicolas Cellier: > I started referencing Smalltalk idioms at > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_programming_languages_(string_functions) > I could have focused on ANSI but have chosen Squeak/Pharo. Feel free > to correct me and to complete me. > > This is a very enlighting exercize, especially for pointing when API > turns to be not that bright. > During my perigrination, I notably noticed this: > > #compare: returns 1, 2, or 3 : this is both very object oriented, very > intuitive and very standard and the rest of the world is stupid, > unless... > > #findLastOccurrenceOfString:startingAt: in its current form is stupid > to my taste, because > 1) implementation is inefficient > 2) the startingAt: only skip the beginning of the string which seems > odd for a rfind operation > I would rather expect this kind of usage: > last := aString findLastOccurrenceOfString: 'to' startingAt: aString size. > lastButOne := aString findLastOccurrenceOfString: 'to' startingAt: last - 1. > > The CamelCase is sometimes abusive like #includesSubString: While I’m with you in the preceding part, the following is incorrect: > > There is no format. I know, purists will tell me that encoding a > format in a cryptic string is not in the Smalltalk spirit, but please > then tell me how to specify a formatting efficiently and also remove > cryptic regex encoding (a pity, it's not in trunk). see String>>format: "format the receiver with aCollection simplest example: 'foo {1} bar' format: {Date today}. complete example: '\{ \} \\ foo {1} bar {2}' format: {12. 'string'}. " as well as the String>>expandMacros* methods. The latter seem more elaborate but unused, however. So Long, -Tobias |
|
|
In reply to this post by Stéphane Ducasse
Incurring on the risk of appearing obvious:
for the rant on the "very object oriented, very intuitive and very standard", I think we could create three symbols: #lesser, #equal, #greater, and return then instead of 1,2 and 3. my 0.0199... -- Cesar Rabak Em 16/02/2011 07:56, Stéphane Ducasse < [hidden email] > escreveu: Hi nicolas propose something and we can react :) I'm busy with project proposal, teaching and 1.2 right now. Stef On Feb 16, 2011, at 10:24 AM, Nicolas Cellier wrote: > I started referencing Smalltalk idioms at > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_programming_languages_(string_functions) > I could have focused on ANSI but have chosen Squeak/Pharo. Feel free > to correct me and to complete me. > > This is a very enlighting exercize, especially for pointing when API > turns to be not that bright. > During my perigrination, I notably noticed this: > > #compare: returns 1, 2, or 3 : this is both very object oriented, very > intuitive and very standard and the rest of the world is stupid, > unless... > > #findLastOccurrenceOfString:startingAt: in its current form is stupid > to my taste, because > 1) implementation is inefficient > 2) the startingAt: only skip the beginning of the string which seems > odd for a rfind operation > I would rather expect this kind of usage: > last := aString findLastOccurrenceOfString: 'to' startingAt: aString size. > lastButOne := aString findLastOccurrenceOfString: 'to' startingAt: last - 1. > > The CamelCase is sometimes abusive like #includesSubString: > > There is no format. I know, purists will tell me that encoding a > format in a cryptic string is not in the Smalltalk spirit, but please > then tell me how to specify a formatting efficiently and also remove > cryptic regex encoding (a pity, it's not in trunk). > > I let a few holes (split/join etc...) > > Cheers > |
|
|
In which namespace would these symbols be defined ? TextConstants ?
I don't think it is at all necessary to consume 3 symbols for a low level mostly unused method. If method is candidate for wikipedia pages, then we should use the well known least surprising standard. If method is private, then I should remove it from wikipedia. Bert is right, we can use anything then, but still I would have prefered least surprising standards. Anyway, putting dialect specific messages in wikipedia rather than ANSI is questionnable. Nicolas 2011/2/16 <[hidden email]>: > Incurring on the risk of appearing obvious: > > for the rant on the "very object oriented, very intuitive and very standard", I think we could create three symbols: #lesser, #equal, #greater, and return then instead of 1,2 and 3. > > my 0.0199... > > -- > Cesar Rabak > > > Em 16/02/2011 07:56, Stéphane Ducasse < [hidden email] > escreveu: > Hi nicolas > > propose something and we can react :) > I'm busy with project proposal, teaching and 1.2 right now. > > Stef > > > On Feb 16, 2011, at 10:24 AM, Nicolas Cellier wrote: > >> I started referencing Smalltalk idioms at >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_programming_languages_(string_functions) >> I could have focused on ANSI but have chosen Squeak/Pharo. Feel free >> to correct me and to complete me. >> >> This is a very enlighting exercize, especially for pointing when API >> turns to be not that bright. >> During my perigrination, I notably noticed this: >> >> #compare: returns 1, 2, or 3 : this is both very object oriented, very >> intuitive and very standard and the rest of the world is stupid, >> unless... >> >> #findLastOccurrenceOfString:startingAt: in its current form is stupid >> to my taste, because >> 1) implementation is inefficient >> 2) the startingAt: only skip the beginning of the string which seems >> odd for a rfind operation >> I would rather expect this kind of usage: >> last := aString findLastOccurrenceOfString: 'to' startingAt: aString size. >> lastButOne := aString findLastOccurrenceOfString: 'to' startingAt: last - 1. >> >> The CamelCase is sometimes abusive like #includesSubString: >> >> There is no format. I know, purists will tell me that encoding a >> format in a cryptic string is not in the Smalltalk spirit, but please >> then tell me how to specify a formatting efficiently and also remove >> cryptic regex encoding (a pity, it's not in trunk). >> >> I let a few holes (split/join etc...) >> >> Cheers >> > > > > > |
«
Return to Pharo Smalltalk Developers
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |