PositionnableStream>>peekFor: not standard
brad fowlow
fowlow at pacbell.net
Thu Mar 1 08:03:49 UTC 2007
I'd guess it was just a nod to the rest of the world.
There are a lot of peeks in a lot of stream implementations out there,
and pretty much all of them leave the result in the stream.
When I see peek in the name of a stream operation,
my hindbrain reads it as non-consuming.
Sometimes there are peeks that alter the stream - operations that
consume everything up to - but not including - a sought-after character.
But the thing you're peeking at is unaffected; that's a very common
convention
about what the word 'peek' conveys in the name of a stream operation.
- b
> I can't help but wonder how ANSI ended up with that definition if
> basically every Smalltalk in existence does it differently. Just
> one of those "design by committee" decisions? Or perhaps there is a
> good reason for it that just never made the light of the day?
> Mostly, the standards committee seemed to have gone with existing
> notions if there wide agreement on them - peekFor: seems to be one
> of those cases where the standard went wildly differently and I
> really wonder why.
>
> Cheers,
> - Andreas
>
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|