Hi Christoph,


Le mer. 1 janv. 2020 à 19:48, Thiede, Christoph <
Christoph.Thiede at student.hpi.uni-potsdam.de> a écrit :

> Oops, Nabble rejected all my <raw>code</code> examples, sorry.
>
>
> Was:
>
> i := 0.
>
> ((RunArray new: 4 withAll: 42) collect: [:x | i := i + 1]) asArray. "#(1 1 1 1)""
>
> vs.
>
> i := 0.
>
> (RunArray new: 4 withAll: 42) collect: [:x | i := i + 1] as: Array. "#(1 2 3 4)"
>
>
> Best,
> Christoph
>

Yes exactly, #collect: select: reject: replace: now have different behavior
if we adopt those changes.
If unwanted, do not use RunArray.

Bag #collect: select: reject: could also behave like that.

Having side effects in do: blocks is OK.
Having side effects in collect: slect: reject: blocks is more questionable.
We use such side effects because we know that these methods are implemented
with #do:, but it's not necessarily so.

I thought about #collect:as: and wondered if it should preserve iteration
on each element or also act per run.
Since the intention is to transfer to another class, I think that
element-wise loop is the least surprising.


> ------------------------------
> *Von:* Squeak-dev <squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org> im
> Auftrag von Thiede, Christoph
> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 1. Januar 2020 19:52 Uhr
> *An:* squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> *Betreff:* Re: [squeak-dev] The Inbox: Collections-nice.869.mcz
>
> Great, thanks for the enhancement!
>
> Now we have got:
>
>
> vs.
>
>
> Would be great to align this. Is it necessary for RunArray >> do: to call
> aBlock once per index?
>
> I don't think so.
It's expected to have block with side effects for do:
We have (aRunArray values do:) or (aRunArray runsAndValuesDo:)


Best,
> Christoph
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Squeak-Dev-f45488.html
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20200101/5091603c/attachment.html>