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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20170615/14a767be/attachment.html>