On 2 May 2013 19:15, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
> I like how your comment describes _why_ the change rather than what
> the change, since what would be redundant with the code.
>
> But it also gave me an idea -- whether it would be good to only space
> it out if it must; e.g., if key and/or value are binary selectors.
> Otherwise, maintian the traditional compact print.
>
> I have an app that makes heavy use of user-specified Arrays of
> Associations for parameterizing objects, which may be using their
> printString output.  Unless you'd like to take the above suggestion,
> I'd like to run with this for a couple of weeks, see how things look,
> before trunking it.  (A new verbification for you Tim!).

I'd be happy to get the compact form back: I hemmed and hawed over
whether or not to do it, hence asking for, well, not _consensus_, but
sanity.

frank

> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 3:46 AM, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 1 May 2013 22:14,  <commits at source.squeak.org> wrote:
>>> Frank Shearar uploaded a new version of Collections to project The Inbox:
>>> http://source.squeak.org/inbox/Collections-fbs.516.mcz
>>>
>>> ==================== Summary ====================
>>>
>>> Name: Collections-fbs.516
>>> Author: fbs
>>> Time: 1 May 2013, 10:14:23.588 pm
>>> UUID: e787006a-d096-47f3-93da-c4681285fae2
>>> Ancestors: Collections-ul.515
>>>
>>> Surrounding the -> in an Assocation in printed form allows the left side to be a binary selector without things breaking: #* -> #+ otherwise prints as '#*->#+', which is the Symbol #*-> followed by garbage.
>>>
>>> =============== Diff against Collections-ul.515 ===============
>>
>> Just to be clear, you're +1'ing this change, Nicolas?
>>
>> (I didn't add tests for the Association >> #printString; I'll
>> understand if you demand these!)
>>
>> frank
>>
>