Hi all
I've got a small naming puzzle: So we have x to: y that makes Intervall (x, x+1, x+2, ... , y) And we can do x to: x + z to get Intervall (x, x+1, x+2, ..., x+z) But we have x twice in there. What would you name the message x ???? z that gives Intervall (x, x+1, x+2, ..., x+z) I'm curious for your answers :) Best regards Tobias PS: #by: is already taken for #to:by: PPS: A workaround is (0 to: z) + x 
x extra: z
? Stef 
In reply to this post by Tobias Pape
x withSuccessors: z
Jakob 20150707 15:14 GMT+02:00 Stéphane Rollandin <[hidden email]>: > x extra: z > > ? > > Stef > 
but what if z is negative?
On 07.07.2015, at 15:39, Jakob Reschke <[hidden email]> wrote: > x withSuccessors: z > > Jakob > > 20150707 15:14 GMT+02:00 Stéphane Rollandin <[hidden email]>: >> x extra: z >> >> ? >> >> Stef 
In reply to this post by Jakob Reschke
Then maybe x toOffset: z?
20150707 15:40 GMT+02:00 Tobias Pape <[hidden email]>: > but what if z is negative? > > On 07.07.2015, at 15:39, Jakob Reschke <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> x withSuccessors: z >> >> Jakob >> >> 20150707 15:14 GMT+02:00 Stéphane Rollandin <[hidden email]>: >>> x extra: z >>> >>> ? >>> >>> Stef > > > 
x walking: z
? 
In reply to this post by Tobias Pape
20150707 15:09 GMT+02:00 Tobias Pape <[hidden email]>: Hi all How about doing it the otherway around, and find a good name for (0 to: z) for example #asRange z asRange + x or z asRangeOffsetBy:x maybe, asRange is not a good name. nicolai 
x andNext: z x length: z ? On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 7:06 AM, Nicolai Hess <[hidden email]> wrote:

> x andNext: z
+1 Stef 
In reply to this post by Tobias Pape
Hi Tobias,
On Jul 7, 2015, at 6:09 AM, Tobias Pape <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hi all > > I've got a small naming puzzle: > > So we have > x to: y > that makes > Intervall (x, x+1, x+2, ... , y) > > And we can do > x to: x + z > to get > Intervall (x, x+1, x+2, ..., x+z) > > > But we have x twice in there. > > What would you name the message > x ???? z > that gives > Intervall (x, x+1, x+2, ..., x+z) > > I'm curious for your answers :) I'm in two mins about this. I really think that considering the reader is important. Is a variable to hold x so bad? Adding yet another API call puts cognitive load in us and forces the new reader to go to the browser to learn what this tiny piece of syntactic sugar adds. Is it really worth it? But since extreme brevity and lots of brief syntactic sugar is the de jure style I guess I'll have to deal with this so let me say andNext: doesn't have any correlates that I know of but throughNext: throughSum: have correlates in stream methods, and toSum: correlates with to: and implies toProduct: if ever someone really wanted it ;) > > Best regards > Tobias > > PS: #by: is already taken for #to:by: > PPS: A workaround is > (0 to: z) + x Eliot (phone) 
In reply to this post by Tobias Pape
On 07.07.2015, at 06:09, Tobias Pape <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Hi all > > I've got a small naming puzzle: > > So we have > x to: y > that makes > Intervall (x, x+1, x+2, ... , y) > > And we can do > x to: x + z > to get > Intervall (x, x+1, x+2, ..., x+z) > > > But we have x twice in there. > > What would you name the message > x ???? z > that gives > Intervall (x, x+1, x+2, ..., x+z) > > I'm curious for your answers :) > > Best regards > Tobias x steps: z x steps: z by: b x withNext: z x withNext: z by: b  Bert  smime.p7s (5K) Download Attachment 
#steps: reminds me of mophic  step interval, right? #withNext: reminds me of #withIndexDo:. I'd expect it to provide two arguments to the block (until I learned otherwise). #next: is stream, and definitely not what we want. I like Eliot's questioning of adding a new method at all, although I'm guilty of doing that a lot. What about a new constructor on Interval? Interval startAt: x next: z Interval startAt: x next: z by: b ? On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Bert Freudenberg <[hidden email]> wrote: On 07.07.2015, at 06:09, Tobias Pape <[hidden email]> wrote: 
Hi all
thanks for your feedback, and to calm Chris C. and Eliot, I don't intend to add yet another convenience message™ just because. If there had been immediate consensus, probably. I just found it stunning that quite a few people at my lab had to think hard to a) explain the problem and b) suggest a name :). Best regards Tobias On 07.07.2015, at 23:27, Chris Cunningham <[hidden email]> wrote: > #steps: reminds me of mophic  step interval, right? > > #withNext: reminds me of #withIndexDo:. I'd expect it to provide two arguments to the block (until I learned otherwise). > > #next: is stream, and definitely not what we want. > > I like Eliot's questioning of adding a new method at all, although I'm guilty of doing that a lot. > > What about a new constructor on Interval? > > Interval startAt: x next: z > Interval startAt: x next: z by: b > ? > > On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Bert Freudenberg <[hidden email]> wrote: > On 07.07.2015, at 06:09, Tobias Pape <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > Hi all > > > > I've got a small naming puzzle: > > > > So we have > > x to: y > > that makes > > Intervall (x, x+1, x+2, ... , y) > > > > And we can do > > x to: x + z > > to get > > Intervall (x, x+1, x+2, ..., x+z) > > > > > > But we have x twice in there. > > > > What would you name the message > > x ???? z > > that gives > > Intervall (x, x+1, x+2, ..., x+z) > > > > I'm curious for your answers :) > > > > Best regards > > Tobias > > > x steps: z > x steps: z by: b > > x withNext: z > x withNext: z by: b > >  Bert  
On 08.07.2015, at 15:19, Tobias Pape <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hi all > > > thanks for your feedback, and to calm Chris C. and Eliot, I don't > intend to add yet another convenience message™ just because. > If there had been immediate consensus, probably. I just found it > stunning that quite a few people at my lab had to think hard to > a) explain the problem and b) suggest a name :). This came just to my mind: 5 toBias: 4 … I show myself out T 
Free forum by Nabble  Edit this page 