> On 3 Jul 2018, at 10:08, Herbert Vojčík <he...@mailbox.sk> wrote:
>
>
>
> Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote on 2. 7. 2018 16:00:
>>> On 25 Jun 2018, at 12:56, Herbert Vojčík <he...@mailbox.sk> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Peter Uhnák wrote on 23. 6. 2018 15:39:
>>>> 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 << '...'
>>>> ]
>>>
>>> aFile writeStreamDo: [ :rawStream |
>>> (ZnNewLineWriterStream on: rawStream) in: [ :stream |
>>> stream << '...' ] ].
>>>
>>> As for transformation, I'd go for some more generic (functional?) approach
>>> like:
>>>
>>> aFile writeStreamDo: ([:x | ZnNewLineWriterStream on: x] pipe: [ :stream |
>>> stream << '...' ]).
>> I like the first version with the (little known, but still standard and
>> clear) #in: selector.
>> I can't see how the second is 'better', as it looks equally 'complex' but
>> adds a new selector, #pipe:
>> All this, IMHO.
>
> It's a bit more focused on the task, that being transform incoming argument.
> Cf.
>
> #asString pipe: [ :aString | ... ]
>
> instead of:
>
> [ :anObject | anObject asString in: [ :aString | ... ] ]
>
> IOW, scope of anObject is limited (and if using #selector you don't even need
> to come up with a name, like the rawStream in examples before).
OK, maybe, what is your definition for #pipe: then ?
>>> Herby
>>>
>>>> To separate the composition from the usage?
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Peter
