On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 1:22 PM, Tobias Pape <Das.Linux at gmx.de> wrote:

>
> > On 15.06.2017, at 21:40, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Tobias,
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Tobias Pape <Das.Linux at gmx.de> wrote:
> >
> > > On 15.06.2017, at 21:22, Chris Cunningham <cunningham.cb at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > #testMissingThenAdd:  ?
> > >
> >
> > #isAdding:
> > #ingests:
> >
> > #wasAbsentButNowIsPresent:
> >
> > (just rambling…)
> >
> > I like added:.  Its concise, accurate and reads nicely:
>

> Ok, but then maybe #addedNew: ? So as we know more than just an adding
> operation succeeded… :)
>

So it reads:

^self select: [:each| seen addedNew: each]

I like that how that reads.

#added: wasn't bad - but I could see myself thinking it meant roughly 'was
this value already in the collection'?  Which misses the add part and is
backwards on the result (true if present, false if added).

-cbc

>
> >
> > withoutDuplicates
> >       "Answer a copy of the receiver that preserves order but eliminates
> any duplicates."
> >       | seen |
> >       seen := Set new: self size.
> >       ^self select: [:each| seen added: each]
> >
> > messagesDo: aBlock
> >       "Evaluate aBlock exactly once with all the message selectors sent
> by me."
> >
> >       | scanner aSet |
> >       self isQuick ifTrue: [ ^self ].
> >       scanner := InstructionStream on: self.
> >       scanner scanFor: [ :x |
> >               | selector |
> >               (selector := scanner selectorToSendOrSelf) == scanner
> ifFalse: [
> >                       ((aSet ifNil: [ aSet := IdentitySet new ]) added:
> selector) ifTrue: [
> >                               aBlock value: selector ] ].
> >               false "keep scanning" ]
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jun 15, 2017 12:19 PM, "Eliot Miranda" <eliot.miranda at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > Hi Tobias,
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 12:06 PM, Tobias Pape <Das.Linux at gmx.de>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 15.06.2017, at 20:30, 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.
> > >
> > > Well, we do have
> > >
> > >         Collection>>addIfNotPresent:
> > >
> > > So why invent a new one?
> > >
> > > Because addIfNotPresent: answers its argument and we need one that
> answers whether the element was absent.  So alas addIfNotPresent: is not a
> suitable candidate.
> > >
> > >
> > > I think the important thing with #addNewElement: is that it returns
> *whether* it added a new element
> > > but then again it breaks the tradition of #add* returning its argument…
> > >
> > > a very clear and very strange one that would reveal that a boolean is
> returned would be #isAbsentAndIfSoAdd: …
> > >
> > > wasAbsentAdding: or ifWasAbsentAdding: would be less cumbersome but I
> like something snappier that people will remember.  ifMissingAdd: looks
> good because it doesn't conflict with the add*: methods answering their
> argument, and the ifMissing implies the answer is true if the element
> wasn't already present.
> > >
> > > Stéphane, can you live with ifMissingAdd: ?  Chris?
> > >
> > > Best regards
> > >         -Tobias
> > >
> > > > _,,,^..^,,,_
> > > > best, Eliot
> > >
> > > _,,,^..^,,,_
> > > best, Eliot
> >
> > _,,,^..^,,,_
> > best, Eliot
> >
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20170615/54bfd93c/attachment.html>