On 21 April 2018 at 03:51, Hilaire <hila...@drgeo.eu> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Out of curiosity.
>
> I always found the #min:max: confusing and lost in its expressiveness.
>
> One should write:
>
> 10 min: 48 max: 12
>
> to expect 12.
>
> but logically one (at least me) may want to express it as:
>
> 10 min: 12 max: 48
>
> Then when reading its source code, it is even more confusing:
>
> min: aMin max: aMax
> ^ (self min: aMin) max: aMax
>
> Are not the argument names inversed in their meaning, if any?
I would agree. I see most use by Color like...
Color>>adjustBrightness: brightness
"Adjust the relative brightness of this color. (lowest value is
0.005 so that hue information is not lost)"
^ self class
h: self hue
s: self saturation
v: (self brightness + brightness min: 1.0 max: 0.005)
alpha: self alpha
Trying to read that twists my brain.
I can understand the intent from the implementation
min: aMin max: aMax
^ (self min: aMin) max: aMax
but that message might more properly be #min:thenMax:
However something like
(self brightness + brightness boundedBy: 0.005 and: 1.0)
(self brightness + brightness boundedMin: 0.005 max: 1.0)
seems more intention revealing.
Altering #min:max semantics would make awful portability,
but perhaps it should forward to a new method to make it clear the other is
preferred.
Would the Squeak community be amenable to a similar change?
I'd be happy to contribute the changes to the Squeak Inbox.
cheers -ben
