In other engines where we want scripting to be used, we use a cull: or value: with a prefix. In the case of Spec, this could be specCull:cull:. This could be used as an extension of Symbol without spawning religious wars :).
The funny thing is that in all these engines that do define special value: like methods, the implementation looks exactly the same. Perhaps this should tell us that it would be worth having it by default. Doru On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymc...@me.com> wrote: > The thing is that cull:cull: can be used on block with 1 parameter. If you > consider symbol as a block with one parameter then it will work in the same > style. > > In other words: methods that use value:value: want to ensure that they are > working with 2 param block. Methods that use cull:cull: don’t care what is > there, but allow you to customise the result with up to 2 parameters. With > symbol you can customise it with 1 parameter. > > Uko > > On 19 Jun 2014, at 14:08, Henrik Johansen <henrik.s.johan...@veloxit.no> > wrote: > > > > > On 19 Jun 2014, at 1:42 , Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymc...@me.com> wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> maybe we should implement #cull:cull: in symbol so that it will call > #cull:? Because this looks correct, if block has 1 parameter, then > #cull:cull: boils down to #value:, but when we have a symbol instead, we > have an exception. > >> > >> I can open an issue and implement that stuff, but I want a feedback > from the conceptual point of view. > >> > >> Uko > >> > > > > #cull: is supposed to be the equivalent to the #value: protocol, where > the parameter is optional. > > > > Symbol has no #value:value: message, hence it should have no #cull:cull: > either. > > > > You could argue it should implement both, with value:value: polymorphic > to the block > > [:a :b | a perform: theSymbol with: b ]. > > > > but cull:cull: would then mean equivalence to: > > for #+ [:a :b | a + b] > > for #squared [:a | a self] > > > > And I don’t see how that’d be intuitive/useful enough to warrant > inclusion > > > > Considering the sole reason cull: on Symbol exists, is to allow select: > etc. to be written using cull so the block arg is optional, but still do > aCollection collect: #mySymbol, the closest equivalent would be . > > aCollection sort: #> / aCollection inject: 0 into: #+ > > which, while might be nice, both have no use for cull:cull: in the same > manner: > > aCollection inject: 0 into: #squared -> [:sub :next | sub squared] ??? > > > > The whole "who is the receiver, what’s going on»-factor of cull:cull: on > symbol is non-intuitive enough that at least I feel it’s better to write > out the block explicitly. > > > > Cheers, > > Henry > > > -- www.tudorgirba.com "Every thing has its own flow"
