Stef,
Like Denis said, there is no #next: in Xtreams, AFIACT.
Yes but this is the same
we should get read and read: and not get and read:
This is my point.
There are
XTReadStream>>#get
"Read an object from self.
If there aren't any elements left in the stream, the Incomplete exception is
raised."
and
XTReadStream>>#read: anInteger
"Read anInteger's worth of elements from self and return them in a
collection.
If full anInteger number of elements cannot be read from the source, the
Incomplete exception is raised."
Like I said, these selector names were chosen to prevent confusion, on purpose.
I think that is good. I also think that a lot of though went into the design.
I personally think that
get and read: are bad and irregular.
XTReadStream>>#read
"Read an object from self.
If there aren't any elements left in the stream, the Incomplete exception is
raised."
XTReadStream>>#read: anInteger
"Read anInteger's worth of elements from self and return them in a collection.
If full anInteger number of elements cannot be read from the source, the
Incomplete exception is raised."
funny how the comments are good. No need to change them. This is a sign.
#++ could be aliased to #seekForward: and #-- to #seekBackward: I guess. I also
do not really like the look of them.
I will not aliased them. Just deprecate them :)
I do not want to have to always scratch my head to understand the code
seekForward and seekBackward is much much nicer.
BTW, I think that the compatibility layer/wrapper is not good (I would be very
surprised if it could hide all the semantic differences). What is the point to
switch to a new stream API if you hide it ?
Incremental migration.
Also, the current stream API is 'too wide', there are too many methods, too
much is expected from streams. To change that, the users must be changed.
Yes we will do that.
Sven
On 23 Mar 2015, at 22:06, stepharo <[email protected]> wrote:
Yes but with
r next.
r next
The choice for different selector names was intentional, by design. To avoid
confusion, because #next and #get are not 100% identical (semantically). This
is an important point.
No I asked martin personally. This is the real reason. There were also
experimenting to offer an API closer to other language.
So that we have
r get.
r next: 4
IIRC, one difference between #get and #next is that
get cannot return nil and will throw an Incomplete exception when EOF
next can return nil and might throws an Exception
Changing the meaning of an existing selector will cause many problems and
discussions. People will think they do not have to change anything and they
will be wrong.
Indeed now this is still not a nice API.
So what would be a nice name for get
I do not get it. I'm probably too tired
get so it is named get and not next.
get cannot return nil and will throw an Incomplete exception when EOF
but
next: that could be confused with next
can return nil and might throws an Exception (because it should follow
next) :)
No stupid stef.
next: is from xtreams so it should follow get
get cannot return nil and will throw an Incomplete exception when EOF
Ahhhhhhhh this is probably clear.
So could we be consistent
nextItem
nextItems:
putItem:
Now since in anyways people will have to revisit they wrapping of next calls
which should probably wraped into and Exception.
I do not see the problem. It is because there is a wrapper that would turn an
Xstream stream into a old API (then again I do not understand
because since the wrapper is another class it can have a next method that
delegates to the correct wrapped xstream which may have or not the same api.
So what is the point?
I mean once xtream will replace the old one it will be for about 10 years so
I'm sorry but we should get the api right (and yes I know that ++ -= are
correct smalltalk still they SUCK).
Stef
