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)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20070828/5c24c908/attachment.htm