OK, I get your point now, #read and #read: are a better combination than #get and #read:
About #++ and friends, yes I think they are so uncommon that they do not warrant a special selector, what is the point ? > On 25 Mar 2015, at 09:12, stepharo <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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.
