On Aug 28, 2007, at 12:30 AM, Bert Freudenberg wrote:

With the generic pipe object from my change-set in the original thread this gets you both - no need to define new methods:

   highestNumberedChangeSet

   "ChangeSorter highestNumberedChangeSet"

   ^self allChangeSetNames asPipe

   select:[:aString | aString startsWithDigit];

   collect:[:aString | aString initialIntegerOrNil];

   ifNotEmpty:[:list | list max]

I have to admit that the asPipe idea is really cool and it might do the trick.

A minor minor thing: you still need to explain it, and it's better to have 1 syntax token attached to 1 meaning.

Is a bit ugly that cascade changes it's meaning: sometimes does X, some times does Y.

Still the asPipe is a very very nice hack.

I think the question is different from adding or not syntax to do a trick.

Do Small-talkers want to assert:

"Use functional programming when possible"

or not ?

This is question. And I can't answer that.

It's not :

"Shall we add a new syntax token to do the trick ?"

Fabio FIlasieno

PS. Note that I associate functional programming with a chained application of functions (better if pure)