Peter, > On 23 Jun 2018, at 15:39, Peter Uhnák <i.uh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > I'm starting to familiarize myself with new streams, and one thing I've > noticed is the removal of #lineEndConvention (which I use all the time). > > So a statement like this > > aFile writeStreamDo: [ :stream | > stream lineEndConvention: #lf. > stream << '...' > ]. > > has to be written like so > > aFile writeStreamDo: [ :rawStream | |stream| > stream := (ZnNewLineWriterStream on: rawStream) forLf. > stream << '...' > ]. > > which feels very messy because I am mixing writing with the configuration. > And I don't even take account for buffered/encoded decorators. Plus it > increases the incidental complexity -- I need another variable, and I can > accidentally write to the wrong stream, etc. > > Would a method like #writeStream:do: (or #writeStreamTransform:do:) make > sense? E.g. > > aFile writeStreamTransform: [ :stream | (ZnNewLineWriterStream on: stream) ] > do: [ :stream | > stream << '...' > ] > > To separate the composition from the usage? > > Thanks, > Peter
The goals of the 'new' (they have existed for quite a while) streams is to go from single big complex do all classes and replace that with a composition of much simpler single purpose classes. Another goal is to reduce the API so that it becomes easier to create new stream classes. Of course, a consequence is that you need composition to get the functionality you want. But I think you understand the tradeoff. If the mixing of configuration/setup with writing/reading bothers you, then I would suggest using two methods. One that does only the writing/reading assuming a limited API, and another that does the configuration/setup, using composition. Note that the streams that you get already are a composition (most often a BinaryFileStream wrapped in a Buffered stream wrapped in a Encoding/Decoding stream). EOL translation is not a standard part of that. But there is quite some system code that does uses EOL translation. Sven
