Le 25/3/15 09:32, Sven Van Caekenberghe a écrit :
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 ?
do not let creep in bad ideas!
I can tell you from a dyslexic point of view
i++
++i
and all cryptic things that makes a programmer feels like a real
men is not fun.
Let us use them carefully not as "look mum I can do it"
Stef
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.
