No means I don't want to start adding Numbers to beautiful unary selectors. I don't understand why you don't understand that point about beauty and simplicity.
> On 20 Dec 2015, at 14:54, Tudor Girba <tu...@tudorgirba.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > I am not sure I understand the meaning of NO in the context of the previous > message. > > Is the NO related to the sumNumbers, or to the min, max? > > Cheers, > Doru > > >> On Dec 20, 2015, at 2:43 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <s...@stfx.eu> wrote: >> >> NO >> >>> On 20 Dec 2015, at 14:32, Tudor Girba <tu...@tudorgirba.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>>> On Dec 20, 2015, at 2:30 PM, Max Leske <maxle...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 20 Dec 2015, at 14:10, Tudor Girba <tu...@tudorgirba.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Could we not have sum, but sumNumbers instead? So, we would end up with: >>>>> >>>>> sum:ifEmpty: >>>>> sum: (with error) >>>>> sumNumbers (without error) >>>>> >>>>> From the outside, #sum: looks like it should parameterize #sum, but the >>>>> implementation is actually different. So, given that in this >>>>> implementation #sum is not a special case of #sum: the two should be >>>>> named differently to reflect that difference. Hence my proposal is to >>>>> keep #sumNumbers instead of #sum. >>>> >>>> I could live with that. We would sacrifice the beautiful selector #sum for >>>> the more intention revealing #sumNumbers. I think that makes sense. >>>> >>>> Concerning the #min and #max methods that means we’d end up with e.g. >>>> #minNumbers, #min: and #min:ifEmpty: etc. >>> >>> Yes. >>> >>> Doru >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Doru >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Dec 20, 2015, at 1:47 PM, Max Leske <maxle...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 20 Dec 2015, at 13:43, Gabriel Cotelli <g.cote...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Max, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> sum: aBlock ifEmpty: emptyBlock needs to obtain the sample evaluating >>>>>>> the block. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> sum: aBlock ifEmpty: emptyBlock >>>>>>> | sum sample | >>>>>>> self isEmpty ifTrue: [ ^ emptyBlock value ]. >>>>>>> sample := aBlock value: self anyOne. >>>>>>> sum := self >>>>>>> inject: sample >>>>>>> into: [ :accum :each | accum + (aBlock value: each) ]. >>>>>>> ^ sum - sample >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks! Missed that. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 8:59 AM, Max Leske <maxle...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> I would like to wrap up this discussion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 05 Dec 2015, at 18:14, stepharo <steph...@free.fr> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So what is the conclusion? >>>>>>>> I like the idea of Esteban M to have iterator because it moves some >>>>>>>> behavior out of core classes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [[[ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> aCollection arithmetic sum: [...] or.... aCollection >>>>>>>> arithmetic avg. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ]]] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> While I think that iterators are an intriguing idea I also believe that >>>>>>> they are beyond the scope of this issue. If anybody wants to follow up >>>>>>> on iterators (or unit types for that matter) please start a new thread >>>>>>> / issue. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I propose to use Sven’s version for #sum:ifEmpty:. The result would be >>>>>>> these three methods: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> sum >>>>>>> ^ self >>>>>>> sum: [ :each | each ] >>>>>>> ifEmpty: [ 0 ] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> sum: aBlock >>>>>>> ^ self >>>>>>> sum: aBlock >>>>>>> ifEmpty: [ self errorEmptyCollection ] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> sum: aBlock ifEmpty: emptyBlock >>>>>>> | sum sample | >>>>>>> self isEmpty ifTrue: [ ^ emptyBlock value ]. >>>>>>> sample := self anyOne. >>>>>>> sum := self >>>>>>> inject: sample >>>>>>> into: [ :accum :each | accum + (aBlock value: each) ]. >>>>>>> ^ sum - sample >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I’ve attached a couple of benchmark results below. To me they show that >>>>>>> 1. the new implementation is maybe a tiny bit slower but >>>>>>> insignificantly so (if you’re going for performance you’ll probably >>>>>>> write your own optimised version anyway) >>>>>>> 2. there is no need to duplicate the code (like #sum and #sum: >>>>>>> currently do). It’s perfectly fine to delegate to #sum:ifEmpty: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In addition to the above changes I would like to remove #detectSum: (-> >>>>>>> #sum:) and #sumNumbers (-> #sum). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Note that once we agree on changing this API, we will need to also >>>>>>> change #detectMin:, #detectMax:, #min, #max as well as all overrides >>>>>>> (e.g. RunArray, Interval) of these and of #sum et. al. to stay >>>>>>> consistent. The changes would of course be in line with this change, >>>>>>> such that every operation has a unary selector with a sensible default, >>>>>>> one that takes a block and throws an error for empty collections and a >>>>>>> third that takes a block for the iteration and one for the empty case. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please cast your vote for these changes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. Do you agree to changing #sum and #sum: in the suggested way? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. Do you agree to the removal of #detectSum:? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3. Do you agree to the removal of #sumNumbers? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 4. Do you agree that the #max and #min selectors also need to be >>>>>>> adapted? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for you help. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> Max >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Benchmarks >>>>>>> ============ >>>>>>> (Note that these aren’t very good benchmarks. There’s quite some >>>>>>> variation on each run.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Machine: >>>>>>> MacBook Pro (15-inch, Early 2011) >>>>>>> CPU: 2.2 GHz Intel Core i7 >>>>>>> Memory: 8 GB 1333 MHz DDR3 >>>>>>> Disk: APPLE SSD TS512C (500 GB) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Benchmarks of the current versions: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [ (1 to: 1000000) asArray sum ] benchFor: 10 seconds. >>>>>>> 75 iterations, 7.470 per second >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [ (1 to: 1000000) asArray sum: [ :e | e ] ] benchFor: 10 seconds. >>>>>>> 72 iterations, 7.128 per second >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [ (1 to: 100) asArray sum ] benchFor: 10 seconds. >>>>>>> 1,189,477 iterations, 118,912 per second >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [ (1 to: 100) asArray sum: [ :e | e ] ] benchFor: 10 seconds. >>>>>>> 1,171,467 iterations, 117,112 per second >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Benchmarks of the new versions: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [ (1 to: 1000000) asArray sum ] benchFor: 10 seconds. >>>>>>> 73 iterations, 7.244 per second >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [ (1 to: 1000000) asArray sum: [ :e | e ] ] benchFor: 10 seconds. >>>>>>> 75 iterations, 7.480 per second >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [ (1 to: 1000000) asArray sum: [ :e | e ] ifEmpty: [ 0 ] ] benchFor: 10 >>>>>>> seconds. >>>>>>> 72 iterations, 7.141 per second >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [ (1 to: 100) asArray sum ] benchFor: 10 seconds. >>>>>>> 1,115,827 iterations, 111,560 per second >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [ (1 to: 100) asArray sum: [ :e | e ] ] benchFor: 10 seconds. >>>>>>> 1,154,595 iterations, 115,425 per second >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [ (1 to: 100) asArray sum: [ :e | e ] ifEmpty: [ 0 ] ] benchFor: 10 >>>>>>> seconds. >>>>>>> 1,102,358 iterations, 110,203 per second >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> www.tudorgirba.com >>>>> www.feenk.com >>>>> >>>>> "There are no old things, there are only old ways of looking at them." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> www.tudorgirba.com >>> www.feenk.com >>> >>> "If you can't say why something is relevant, >>> it probably isn't." >> >> > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > www.feenk.com > > "Beauty is where we see it." > > > > >
