I like the conciseness, but #added: seems like a non-mutative
"testing" message like #includes:, instead of a directive like #add...


On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 3:22 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… :)
>
>>
>> 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
>>
>
>