I haven't seen it, good catch.

On 8/27/07, Michael Lucas-Smith <mlucas-smith at cincom.com> wrote:
> It's not like you even need a new syntax to avoid the paranthesis - just
> new kinds of objects, eg:
>
> nonHermsOlderThanTensMothersNames := lotsOfPeople selecting: [:each |
> each age > 10]; rejecting: [:each | each sex = #unknown]; collecting:
> [:each | each mother]; selecting: [:each | each notNil]; collecting:
> [:each | each name]; asOrderedCollection
>
> No new syntax, just new objects. Has this already been covered in the
> thread? if so, sorry for bringing it up again.
>
> Michael
>
> Ron Teitelbaum wrote:
> > Hi Randal,
> >
> > Thanks for the suggestion.
> >
> > To be clear, even though I support using the symbol ';;' as pipe operator IF
> > we put it in, I doubt I would actually ever use it.  I prefer parenthesis,
> > and agree that if you are many levels nested you probably need to ether
> > create more objects to model your complicated behavior, or you need to add
> > temps to make it easier to read your code.
> >
> > On the other hand I find the cascade extremely useful, especially for
> > creation methods.  I find chaining more tolerable when the object doesn't
> > change.  It just makes more sense.  For the same reason I usually look at
> > long chained methods as an indication that the code is probably written on
> > the wrong class and needs to be cleaned up.
> >
> > Ron
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Randal L. Schwartz
> >>
> >>
> >> Would any of the "pipe" advocates mind taking a stab at the *current*
> >> source
> >> methods, and rewrite the method showing how pipe syntax would have
> >> simplified
> >> or clarified the method?
> >>
> >> I ask this because I suspect that if you're following good practices (such
> >> as
> >> those adovocated in Beck's "Smalltalk Best Practice Patterns"), you won't
> >> actually *need* a pipe syntax, because your code would never have gotten
> >> that
> >> complicated.
> >>
> >> So, instead of writing Smalltalk with a bias for your previous programming
> >> language where pipe makes more sense, how about taking some *native*
> >> Smalltalk
> >> to show how pipe would have helped?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777
> >> 0095
> >> <merlyn at stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
> >> Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
> >> See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl
> >> training!
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>