On 19/6/14 14:08, Henrik Johansen 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
+1
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
