Hi Eliot,

Yes, because of the dual purpose of this method; 1) to ensure presence of
an element and, 2) answer whether the element already existed, there isn't
a clear and concise name which conveys the full nuance.  It's one of those
methods which requires an initial look at the comment and/or code until one
is familiar with it.

I considered those names, too.  I didn't care for addIfAbsent: for the
reason you stated.  I don't care for ifAbsentAdd: because it's backward
with other "Absent" nomenclature in the API.

And, I didn't go with #ifMissingAdd: because it confuses the return value
with the linguistic semantics -- e.g., if it returns true, does that mean
it was "absent" or that it was added?  forcing me to look at the method
implementation again anyway.

#addNewElement: fits in with the #add... nomenclature part of the API,
being like a "command" to the object, to which it may answer, "no" (false),
if the element already existed.

It seems the only initial confusion you had was whether it signaled an
Exception or not, but I see no other name that avoids the user needing to
look at the implementation at least the first time.

Therefore, I think #addNewElement: is a good name.

Best,
  Chris

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Levente, Hi Chris,
>
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Levente Uzonyi <leves at caesar.elte.hu>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 14 Jun 2017, commits at source.squeak.org wrote:
>>
>> Eliot Miranda uploaded a new version of Collections to project The Trunk:
>>> http://source.squeak.org/trunk/Collections-eem.756.mcz
>>>
>>> ==================== Summary ====================
>>>
>>> Name: Collections-eem.756
>>> Author: eem
>>> Time: 14 June 2017, 11:03:24.917631 am
>>> UUID: 8d7c03bc-1cdb-44c7-9173-10d50c0dae29
>>> Ancestors: Collections-eem.755
>>>
>>> Add SequenceableCollection>>withoutDuplicates for a more elegant fix to
>>> MailMessage>>to:
>>>
>>> =============== Diff against Collections-eem.755 ===============
>>>
>>> Item was added:
>>> + ----- Method: SequenceableCollection>>withoutDuplicates (in category
>>> 'copying') -----
>>> + withoutDuplicates
>>> +       "Answer a copy of the receiver that preserves order but
>>> eliminates any duplicates."
>>> +       | seen |
>>> +       seen := Set new: self size.
>>> +       ^self select: [:each|
>>> +                                 (seen includes: each)
>>> +                                       ifTrue: [false]
>>> +                                       ifFalse: [seen add: each. true]]!
>>>
>>
>> What a great opportunity to use #addNewElement::
>>
>>         ^self select: [ :each | seen addNewElement: each ]
>
>
> I love the functionality but I don't like the selector. It seems to imply
> that one must only add a new element.  So why not call this something like
> addIfAbsent: ?
>
> Here are some suggestions.  Votes?
> - don't change it; stick with addNewElement:
> - addIfAbsent:
> - ifAbsentAdd:
> - ifMissingAdd:
>
> I think I prefer ifAbsentAdd: cuz addIfAbsent: looks too much like a
> potential spelling error, and conflicts with typical ifAbsent: arguments
> supplying exception blocks.  But I could go with ifMissingAdd: because it
> is more distinctive.
>
>
>> Levente
>>
>
> _,,,^..^,,,_
> best, Eliot
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20170615/5e8e63e6/attachment.html>