On Aug 28, 2007, at 12:30 AM, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
With the generic pipe object from my change-set in the original thread this gets you both - no need to define new methods:
highestNumberedChangeSet "ChangeSorter highestNumberedChangeSet" ^self allChangeSetNames asPipe select:[:aString | aString startsWithDigit]; collect:[:aString | aString initialIntegerOrNil]; ifNotEmpty:[:list | list max]
I have to admit that the asPipe idea is really cool and it might do the trick.
A minor minor thing: you still need to explain it, and it's better to have 1 syntax token attached to 1 meaning. Is a bit ugly that cascade changes it's meaning: sometimes does X, some times does Y.
Still the asPipe is a very very nice hack.
I think the question is different from adding or not syntax to do a trick.
Do Small-talkers want to assert:
"Use functional programming when possible"
or not ?
This is question. And I can't answer that.
It's not : "Shall we add a new syntax token to do the trick ?"
Fabio FIlasieno
PS. Note that I associate functional programming with a chained application of functions (better if pure)