Hi Chris,

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Chris Muller <ma.chris.m at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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,
>

to be pedantic, answer if the element didn't already exist


> 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.
>

Given that addNewElement: doesn't convey the full nuance that's not a valid
criticism of the other alternatives, is 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.
>

No.  The selector implies it might.  The selector is bad because this does
not add a new element, it ensures an element is present, and answers if it
was added.


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

I beg to differ.  I find it misleading :-(  Which is a shame because it's
really useful.  How about trying to reach consensus on a less misleading
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
>>
>
>


-- 
_,,,^..^,,,_
best, Eliot
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20170615/4929ecb1/attachment.html>