Clement
can you open a bug entry so that we clean this situation?
Stef
On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 12:43 PM, Clément Bera <bera.clem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It seems the two methods have exactly the same behavior indeed.
> valueWithPossibleArgs: anArray
> valueWithEnoughArguments: anArray
>
> One was edited recently but I think it's only to change the comment, they're
> both very old. My guess is that there are two for compatibility purpose (One
> is the selector that is considered as the most relevant that should be used,
> the other one is the one also present in other Smalltalks so we have it for
> cross-Smalltalk librairies or something like that), but only one is really
> needed. If you need only the concept for SOM-NS you can just implement one,
> if you want to be compatible with different Smalltalk lib implement both.
>
> All use-cases of these methods I have found do not inject nils, they expect
> the block to have a number of arguments of the block less or equal to the
> number of parameters in the argument array. I would say they're used as
> #cullWithArguments: but for some reason other selector names were preferred.
>
> Now, as you mentioned, these two methods are more than just
> cullWithArguments: since they inject nils if there are not enough
> parameters. To me it looks incorrect to do so because then while debugging
> your code you will get issues due to those injected nils and it will be
> tedious for the application programmer to track the problem down to these
> two methods.
>
> There a few use-cases for nil injection though. Typically when changing
> existing frameworks in multiple repositories, it may be that during the
> update process the change to the caller is installed before the change of
> the callee, and if the code is actually used (code in UI for instance),
> injecting nils might avoid system break-down. Another use-case is for
> compatibility with frameworks using the nil injection, but I can't find a
> framework doing that right now.
>
> Honestly, I would not implement the nil injection, but maybe some one else
> has a different point of view.
>
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 6:25 PM, Stefan Marr <smallt...@stefan-marr.de>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi:
>>
>> I am trying to understand the different between and perhaps origin of
>> BlockClosure>>#valueWithPossibleArgs: and
>> BlockClosure>>#valueWithEnoughArguments:
>>
>> I am trying to decide which of the two I need for SOMns.
>>
>> The first one has seen more recent changes, when looking at the Pharo 6.1
>> download:
>>
>> valueWithPossibleArgs: anArray —> 2/12/2017 StephaneDucasse
>> valueWithEnoughArguments: anArray —> 3/11/2001 nk
>>
>> While they have rather different implementations, they seem to behave
>> identically, as far as I could tell using the following example:
>>
>> blocks := {
>> [ { } ].
>> [:a | { a } ].
>> [:a :b | { a. b } ].
>> [:a :b :c | { a. b. c } ]
>> }.
>>
>> blocks collect: [:b | b valueWithPossibleArgs: {1}].
>> blocks collect: [:b | b valueWithPossibleArgs: {1. 2. 3}].
>> blocks collect: [:b | b valueWithEnoughArguments: {1}].
>> blocks collect: [:b | b valueWithEnoughArguments: {1. 2. 3}].
>>
>> I was also wondering how they relate to #cull:*
>>
>> One of the major differences seems to be that valueWithP* and valueWithE*
>> are both injecting nil for absent arguments, while normal #value* and #cull*
>> methods signal an error.
>> Is there a specific use case why one wouldn’t want to be strict here as
>> well, but instead inject nils?
>>
>> Any comments or pointer appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Stefan
>>
>>
>> --
>> Stefan Marr
>> School of Computing, University of Kent
>> http://stefan-marr.de/research/
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Clément Béra
> Pharo consortium engineer
> https://clementbera.wordpress.com/
> Bâtiment B 40, avenue Halley 59650 Villeneuve d'Ascq
