Re: [Pharo-dev] I have a dream... or why I think that compatibility is an illusion and bring us to the past

[Nicolas Cellier]

Note that I also cared to handle ^ as binary selector for Opal
Unfortunately the issue staled (for good or bad reasons, don't know...)

https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/13078/Allow-upArrow-caret-as-a-binary-selector

Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 à 21:21, Nicolas Cellier <
nicolas.cellier.aka.n...@gmail.com> a écrit :

> It was just an answer to:
>
> > Do not tell me that there is a value in these selectors?
>
> I used the same argument for huge?:or!:???and:
> But I don't think it's a valid argument: it's making induction starting
> with a restricted set of examples...
>
> I also tried to answer to why and when a binary selector would be a "good"
> selector (elected for core libraries).
> (since you gave a list of selectors which were OK)
>
> I said that I don't really need ? nor ! in binary selectors, but neither
> do I in unary/keyword selectors
> (though I also thought using ? for boolean answer, I don't think it's
> really useful)
>
>
>
> Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 à 20:10, ducasse  a
> écrit :
>
>> Wait I do not understand what you are saying :)
>> I never said that I want to forbid anything. I just say that I would like
>> that ? is not consider as a part of a binary selector.
>> Am’i clearer?
>>
>> Stef
>>
>>
>> On 11 Sep 2019, at 19:48, Nicolas Cellier <
>> nicolas.cellier.aka.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Ah, and I forgot about your argumentation Stef:
>>
>> you cannot forbid binary selectors altogether because some are ugly
>> @@*+!!! (I think I read this one in Asterix le gaulois)
>> for the same reasons that
>> youCanNOtfOrBIDunaYSElectORSWIthletTersBECauSESoMeaREUgly
>>
>> Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 à 19:44, Nicolas Cellier <
>> nicolas.cellier.aka.n...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 à 10:40, Serge Stinckwich <
>>> serge.stinckw...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>>>


 On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 2:14 AM Gabriel Cotelli 
 wrote:

> Looks like Christmas season opened early this year :)
>
> Jokes aside, I'm in favor of changing some of the characters we use
> for binary selectors to allow it to be used in keyword/unary messages.
>
> I'll include % in that list. For me its more useful as a way to create
> percentages ( 5 % ) than to be used as a binary message for keeping an 
> ugly
> name from C-like languages.
>
>- · is middle dot and it's used in some math operations AFAIR
>- × is used in math also (it's used as the multiplication sign for
>scalars, cross product for vectors and cartesian product for sets)
>
> One thing that would be really cool is that we can use the full power
> of Unicode in methods/class names. Projects like polymath and DSLs can
> clearly take advantage of that. Some examples I've just invented, but can
> be supported:
>
>
>- ∑ from: 1 to: 5 do: [:i | i + i squared ]
>- 1 ≥ 3
>- ∃ anyIn: #( 1 2 4) such: [:x | x isPrime ]
>- ∅ includes: 1
>
>
>
 Yes I would like to have something like that for PolyMath :-)
 Is it possible to use Unicode characters for identifiers already ?

 I working on the port of : https://github.com/len/Domains
 to Pharo. The author modify the Cuis parser, so he can do things like
 that :

 "⊕ is used for direct sums, ⊗ for tensor products, × for cartesian
 product, direct product of groups, ring products, and in general for
 categorical products."

>>>
>>> Of course we want to be able to use those selectors:  ⊕  ⊗ etc...
>>> Not using those selectors in core image is one thing, forbiding their
>>> usage for every package is another thing
>>>
>>> Concerning the selectors with more than 2 characters, there are two
>>> examples in use in Squeak
>>> ==> logical implication (I use it a lot when writing tests cases)
>>> <=> space ship operator
>>> /// has been used in the past (but is rather deprecated)
>>>
>>> What is questionable is cultural acceptance of universal meaning of a
>>> Symbol
>>> <=> could have meant logical equivalence, but it would be pointless,
>>> because = (and == thanks to singleton) are already equivalence.
>>> It has been expunged from Pharo to my regrets, because it is
>>> - beautifully self defined as < = >
>>> - culturally legitimate
>>> - the art of original author (Travis Griggs)
>>> There is no sacred cow, but respect of author has a value for me.
>>>
>>> It's sure that every binary selector might be questionable, at least in
>>> core image.
>>> For application, you never know (think DSL) we can create a lot of not
>>> completely inaesthetic ASCII styles
>>> <|>  ><   <+> <->  /+/  |*|
>>> For example +/- could be used for interval arithmetic (if we don't want
>>> to pay the burden of typing unicode, which ain't easy)
>>> /\  \/  intersection and union
>>> |\| the Nicolas operator - I didn't fin a usage for it yet ;)
>>> etc...
>>> So why would one want to forbid them?
>>>
>>> For ? and ! I do not foresee elegant usage as binary, but wou

Re: [Pharo-dev] I have a dream... or why I think that compatibility is an illusion and bring us to the past

[Nicolas Cellier]

It was just an answer to:

> Do not tell me that there is a value in these selectors?

I used the same argument for huge?:or!:???and:
But I don't think it's a valid argument: it's making induction starting
with a restricted set of examples...

I also tried to answer to why and when a binary selector would be a "good"
selector (elected for core libraries).
(since you gave a list of selectors which were OK)

I said that I don't really need ? nor ! in binary selectors, but neither do
I in unary/keyword selectors
(though I also thought using ? for boolean answer, I don't think it's
really useful)



Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 à 20:10, ducasse  a écrit :

> Wait I do not understand what you are saying :)
> I never said that I want to forbid anything. I just say that I would like
> that ? is not consider as a part of a binary selector.
> Am’i clearer?
>
> Stef
>
>
> On 11 Sep 2019, at 19:48, Nicolas Cellier <
> nicolas.cellier.aka.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ah, and I forgot about your argumentation Stef:
>
> you cannot forbid binary selectors altogether because some are ugly
> @@*+!!! (I think I read this one in Asterix le gaulois)
> for the same reasons that
> youCanNOtfOrBIDunaYSElectORSWIthletTersBECauSESoMeaREUgly
>
> Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 à 19:44, Nicolas Cellier <
> nicolas.cellier.aka.n...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 à 10:40, Serge Stinckwich <
>> serge.stinckw...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 2:14 AM Gabriel Cotelli 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Looks like Christmas season opened early this year :)

 Jokes aside, I'm in favor of changing some of the characters we use for
 binary selectors to allow it to be used in keyword/unary messages.

 I'll include % in that list. For me its more useful as a way to create
 percentages ( 5 % ) than to be used as a binary message for keeping an ugly
 name from C-like languages.

- · is middle dot and it's used in some math operations AFAIR
- × is used in math also (it's used as the multiplication sign for
scalars, cross product for vectors and cartesian product for sets)

 One thing that would be really cool is that we can use the full power
 of Unicode in methods/class names. Projects like polymath and DSLs can
 clearly take advantage of that. Some examples I've just invented, but can
 be supported:


- ∑ from: 1 to: 5 do: [:i | i + i squared ]
- 1 ≥ 3
- ∃ anyIn: #( 1 2 4) such: [:x | x isPrime ]
- ∅ includes: 1



>>> Yes I would like to have something like that for PolyMath :-)
>>> Is it possible to use Unicode characters for identifiers already ?
>>>
>>> I working on the port of : https://github.com/len/Domains
>>> to Pharo. The author modify the Cuis parser, so he can do things like
>>> that :
>>>
>>> "⊕ is used for direct sums, ⊗ for tensor products, × for cartesian
>>> product, direct product of groups, ring products, and in general for
>>> categorical products."
>>>
>>
>> Of course we want to be able to use those selectors:  ⊕  ⊗ etc...
>> Not using those selectors in core image is one thing, forbiding their
>> usage for every package is another thing
>>
>> Concerning the selectors with more than 2 characters, there are two
>> examples in use in Squeak
>> ==> logical implication (I use it a lot when writing tests cases)
>> <=> space ship operator
>> /// has been used in the past (but is rather deprecated)
>>
>> What is questionable is cultural acceptance of universal meaning of a
>> Symbol
>> <=> could have meant logical equivalence, but it would be pointless,
>> because = (and == thanks to singleton) are already equivalence.
>> It has been expunged from Pharo to my regrets, because it is
>> - beautifully self defined as < = >
>> - culturally legitimate
>> - the art of original author (Travis Griggs)
>> There is no sacred cow, but respect of author has a value for me.
>>
>> It's sure that every binary selector might be questionable, at least in
>> core image.
>> For application, you never know (think DSL) we can create a lot of not
>> completely inaesthetic ASCII styles
>> <|>  ><   <+> <->  /+/  |*|
>> For example +/- could be used for interval arithmetic (if we don't want
>> to pay the burden of typing unicode, which ain't easy)
>> /\  \/  intersection and union
>> |\| the Nicolas operator - I didn't fin a usage for it yet ;)
>> etc...
>> So why would one want to forbid them?
>>
>> For ? and ! I do not foresee elegant usage as binary, but would not miss
>> them as regular letters eithers.
>> It means accepting huge???  - understand isReallyHuge :)
>> huge?:or!:???and: which are not less questionable.
>>
>> Ideally, it should be really easy to define one's own syntax in any class
>> (already possible with own compiler/parser/scanner/whatever), or maybe any
>> method
>> I find that it's somehow more complex with the well engineered new
>> Compiler than it was with the very hackish legacy one, b

Re: [Pharo-dev] I have a dream... or why I think that compatibility is an illusion and bring us to the past

[ducasse]

Wait I do not understand what you are saying :)
I never said that I want to forbid anything. I just say that I would like that 
? is not consider as a part of a binary selector. 
Am’i clearer?

Stef


> On 11 Sep 2019, at 19:48, Nicolas Cellier 
>  wrote:
> 
> Ah, and I forgot about your argumentation Stef:
> 
> you cannot forbid binary selectors altogether because some are ugly @@*+!!! 
> (I think I read this one in Asterix le gaulois)
> for the same reasons that 
> youCanNOtfOrBIDunaYSElectORSWIthletTersBECauSESoMeaREUgly
> 
> Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 à 19:44, Nicolas Cellier 
>  > a écrit :
> 
> 
> Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 à 10:40, Serge Stinckwich  > a écrit :
> 
> 
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 2:14 AM Gabriel Cotelli  > wrote:
> Looks like Christmas season opened early this year :)
> 
> Jokes aside, I'm in favor of changing some of the characters we use for 
> binary selectors to allow it to be used in keyword/unary messages. 
> 
> I'll include % in that list. For me its more useful as a way to create 
> percentages ( 5 % ) than to be used as a binary message for keeping an ugly 
> name from C-like languages.
> · is middle dot and it's used in some math operations AFAIR
> × is used in math also (it's used as the multiplication sign for scalars, 
> cross product for vectors and cartesian product for sets)
> One thing that would be really cool is that we can use the full power of 
> Unicode in methods/class names. Projects like polymath and DSLs can clearly 
> take advantage of that. Some examples I've just invented, but can be 
> supported:
> 
> ∑ from: 1 to: 5 do: [:i | i + i squared ]
> 1 ≥ 3
> ∃ anyIn: #( 1 2 4) such: [:x | x isPrime ] 
> ∅ includes: 1
> 
> 
> Yes I would like to have something like that for PolyMath :-)
> Is it possible to use Unicode characters for identifiers already ?
> 
> I working on the port of : https://github.com/len/Domains 
> 
> to Pharo. The author modify the Cuis parser, so he can do things like that : 
> 
> "⊕ is used for direct sums, ⊗ for tensor products, × for cartesian product, 
> direct product of groups, ring products, and in general for categorical 
> products."
> 
> Of course we want to be able to use those selectors:  ⊕  ⊗ etc...
> Not using those selectors in core image is one thing, forbiding their usage 
> for every package is another thing
> 
> Concerning the selectors with more than 2 characters, there are two examples 
> in use in Squeak
> ==> logical implication (I use it a lot when writing tests cases)
> <=> space ship operator
> /// has been used in the past (but is rather deprecated)
> 
> What is questionable is cultural acceptance of universal meaning of a Symbol
> <=> could have meant logical equivalence, but it would be pointless, because 
> = (and == thanks to singleton) are already equivalence.
> It has been expunged from Pharo to my regrets, because it is
> - beautifully self defined as < = >
> - culturally legitimate
> - the art of original author (Travis Griggs)
> There is no sacred cow, but respect of author has a value for me.
> 
> It's sure that every binary selector might be questionable, at least in core 
> image.
> For application, you never know (think DSL) we can create a lot of not 
> completely inaesthetic ASCII styles
> <|>  ><   <+> <->  /+/  |*| 
> For example +/- could be used for interval arithmetic (if we don't want to 
> pay the burden of typing unicode, which ain't easy)
> /\  \/  intersection and union
> |\| the Nicolas operator - I didn't fin a usage for it yet ;)
> etc...
> So why would one want to forbid them?
> 
> For ? and ! I do not foresee elegant usage as binary, but would not miss them 
> as regular letters eithers.
> It means accepting huge???  - understand isReallyHuge :)
> huge?:or!:???and: which are not less questionable.
> 
> Ideally, it should be really easy to define one's own syntax in any class 
> (already possible with own compiler/parser/scanner/whatever), or maybe any 
> method
> I find that it's somehow more complex with the well engineered new Compiler 
> than it was with the very hackish legacy one, but that's a detail.
> 
> 
> and also define ^ as a binary method:
> 
> "The ^ (hat) operator is used for exponentiation as well as conjugation by 
> group elements, and for creating free modules of tuples and matrices."
> 
> I'm not sure this is a good idea, because ^ is used also to return values.
> 
> There is no ambiguity for ^ and i have proposed that in Squeak years ago, 
> it's a very simple change (here for legacy Compiler)
> http://source.squeak.org/inbox/Compiler-nice.280.diff 
> 
> 
> The only argument against it is that omitting the point ending last but one 
> sentence would not be detected as invalid syntax
> 
> self doThis.
> ^self doThat
> 
> versus
> 
> self doThis
> ^self doThat
> 
> To addr

Re: [Pharo-dev] I have a dream... or why I think that compatibility is an illusion and bring us to the past

[Nicolas Cellier]

Ah, and I forgot about your argumentation Stef:

you cannot forbid binary selectors altogether because some are ugly @@*+!!!
(I think I read this one in Asterix le gaulois)
for the same reasons that
youCanNOtfOrBIDunaYSElectORSWIthletTersBECauSESoMeaREUgly

Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 à 19:44, Nicolas Cellier <
nicolas.cellier.aka.n...@gmail.com> a écrit :

>
>
> Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 à 10:40, Serge Stinckwich <
> serge.stinckw...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 2:14 AM Gabriel Cotelli 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Looks like Christmas season opened early this year :)
>>>
>>> Jokes aside, I'm in favor of changing some of the characters we use for
>>> binary selectors to allow it to be used in keyword/unary messages.
>>>
>>> I'll include % in that list. For me its more useful as a way to create
>>> percentages ( 5 % ) than to be used as a binary message for keeping an ugly
>>> name from C-like languages.
>>>
>>>- · is middle dot and it's used in some math operations AFAIR
>>>- × is used in math also (it's used as the multiplication sign for
>>>scalars, cross product for vectors and cartesian product for sets)
>>>
>>> One thing that would be really cool is that we can use the full power of
>>> Unicode in methods/class names. Projects like polymath and DSLs can clearly
>>> take advantage of that. Some examples I've just invented, but can be
>>> supported:
>>>
>>>
>>>-
>>>
>>>∑ from: 1 to: 5 do: [:i | i + i squared ]
>>>-
>>>
>>>1 ≥ 3
>>>-
>>>
>>>∃ anyIn: #( 1 2 4) such: [:x | x isPrime ]
>>>-
>>>
>>>∅ includes: 1
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Yes I would like to have something like that for PolyMath :-)
>> Is it possible to use Unicode characters for identifiers already ?
>>
>> I working on the port of : https://github.com/len/Domains
>> to Pharo. The author modify the Cuis parser, so he can do things like
>> that :
>>
>> "⊕ is used for direct sums, ⊗ for tensor products, × for cartesian
>> product, direct product of groups, ring products, and in general for
>> categorical products."
>>
>
> Of course we want to be able to use those selectors:  ⊕  ⊗ etc...
> Not using those selectors in core image is one thing, forbiding their
> usage for every package is another thing
>
> Concerning the selectors with more than 2 characters, there are two
> examples in use in Squeak
> ==> logical implication (I use it a lot when writing tests cases)
> <=> space ship operator
> /// has been used in the past (but is rather deprecated)
>
> What is questionable is cultural acceptance of universal meaning of a
> Symbol
> <=> could have meant logical equivalence, but it would be pointless,
> because = (and == thanks to singleton) are already equivalence.
> It has been expunged from Pharo to my regrets, because it is
> - beautifully self defined as < = >
> - culturally legitimate
> - the art of original author (Travis Griggs)
> There is no sacred cow, but respect of author has a value for me.
>
> It's sure that every binary selector might be questionable, at least in
> core image.
> For application, you never know (think DSL) we can create a lot of not
> completely inaesthetic ASCII styles
> <|>  ><   <+> <->  /+/  |*|
> For example +/- could be used for interval arithmetic (if we don't want to
> pay the burden of typing unicode, which ain't easy)
> /\  \/  intersection and union
> |\| the Nicolas operator - I didn't fin a usage for it yet ;)
> etc...
> So why would one want to forbid them?
>
> For ? and ! I do not foresee elegant usage as binary, but would not miss
> them as regular letters eithers.
> It means accepting huge???  - understand isReallyHuge :)
> huge?:or!:???and: which are not less questionable.
>
> Ideally, it should be really easy to define one's own syntax in any class
> (already possible with own compiler/parser/scanner/whatever), or maybe any
> method
> I find that it's somehow more complex with the well engineered new
> Compiler than it was with the very hackish legacy one, but that's a detail.
>
>
>> and also define ^ as a binary method:
>>
>> "The ^ (hat) operator is used for exponentiation as well as conjugation
>> by group elements, and for creating free modules of tuples and matrices."
>>
>> I'm not sure this is a good idea, because ^ is used also to return values.
>>
>
> There is no ambiguity for ^ and i have proposed that in Squeak years ago,
> it's a very simple change (here for legacy Compiler)
> http://source.squeak.org/inbox/Compiler-nice.280.diff
>
> The only argument against it is that omitting the point ending last but
> one sentence would not be detected as invalid syntax
>
> self doThis.
> ^self doThat
>
> versus
>
> self doThis
> ^self doThat
>
> To address this concern, we could have rules concerning the formatting:
> normally we would write
>
> self doThis ^ self doThat
>
> or eventually if on several lines, we would generally indent
>
> self doThis
> ^ self doThat
>
> An unusual formatting is a code smell IMO
> And in fact, th

Re: [Pharo-dev] I have a dream... or why I think that compatibility is an illusion and bring us to the past

[Nicolas Cellier]

Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 à 10:40, Serge Stinckwich 
a écrit :

>
>
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 2:14 AM Gabriel Cotelli 
> wrote:
>
>> Looks like Christmas season opened early this year :)
>>
>> Jokes aside, I'm in favor of changing some of the characters we use for
>> binary selectors to allow it to be used in keyword/unary messages.
>>
>> I'll include % in that list. For me its more useful as a way to create
>> percentages ( 5 % ) than to be used as a binary message for keeping an ugly
>> name from C-like languages.
>>
>>- · is middle dot and it's used in some math operations AFAIR
>>- × is used in math also (it's used as the multiplication sign for
>>scalars, cross product for vectors and cartesian product for sets)
>>
>> One thing that would be really cool is that we can use the full power of
>> Unicode in methods/class names. Projects like polymath and DSLs can clearly
>> take advantage of that. Some examples I've just invented, but can be
>> supported:
>>
>>
>>-
>>
>>∑ from: 1 to: 5 do: [:i | i + i squared ]
>>-
>>
>>1 ≥ 3
>>-
>>
>>∃ anyIn: #( 1 2 4) such: [:x | x isPrime ]
>>-
>>
>>∅ includes: 1
>>
>>
>>
> Yes I would like to have something like that for PolyMath :-)
> Is it possible to use Unicode characters for identifiers already ?
>
> I working on the port of : https://github.com/len/Domains
> to Pharo. The author modify the Cuis parser, so he can do things like that
> :
>
> "⊕ is used for direct sums, ⊗ for tensor products, × for cartesian
> product, direct product of groups, ring products, and in general for
> categorical products."
>

Of course we want to be able to use those selectors:  ⊕  ⊗ etc...
Not using those selectors in core image is one thing, forbiding their usage
for every package is another thing

Concerning the selectors with more than 2 characters, there are two
examples in use in Squeak
==> logical implication (I use it a lot when writing tests cases)
<=> space ship operator
/// has been used in the past (but is rather deprecated)

What is questionable is cultural acceptance of universal meaning of a Symbol
<=> could have meant logical equivalence, but it would be pointless,
because = (and == thanks to singleton) are already equivalence.
It has been expunged from Pharo to my regrets, because it is
- beautifully self defined as < = >
- culturally legitimate
- the art of original author (Travis Griggs)
There is no sacred cow, but respect of author has a value for me.

It's sure that every binary selector might be questionable, at least in
core image.
For application, you never know (think DSL) we can create a lot of not
completely inaesthetic ASCII styles
<|>  ><   <+> <->  /+/  |*|
For example +/- could be used for interval arithmetic (if we don't want to
pay the burden of typing unicode, which ain't easy)
/\  \/  intersection and union
|\| the Nicolas operator - I didn't fin a usage for it yet ;)
etc...
So why would one want to forbid them?

For ? and ! I do not foresee elegant usage as binary, but would not miss
them as regular letters eithers.
It means accepting huge???  - understand isReallyHuge :)
huge?:or!:???and: which are not less questionable.

Ideally, it should be really easy to define one's own syntax in any class
(already possible with own compiler/parser/scanner/whatever), or maybe any
method
I find that it's somehow more complex with the well engineered new Compiler
than it was with the very hackish legacy one, but that's a detail.


> and also define ^ as a binary method:
>
> "The ^ (hat) operator is used for exponentiation as well as conjugation by
> group elements, and for creating free modules of tuples and matrices."
>
> I'm not sure this is a good idea, because ^ is used also to return values.
>

There is no ambiguity for ^ and i have proposed that in Squeak years ago,
it's a very simple change (here for legacy Compiler)
http://source.squeak.org/inbox/Compiler-nice.280.diff

The only argument against it is that omitting the point ending last but one
sentence would not be detected as invalid syntax

self doThis.
^self doThat

versus

self doThis
^self doThat

To address this concern, we could have rules concerning the formatting:
normally we would write

self doThis ^ self doThat

or eventually if on several lines, we would generally indent

self doThis
^ self doThat

An unusual formatting is a code smell IMO
And in fact, this is not much different from un-detecting when we send a
message #self when forgetting the point

self doThis
self doThat

self doThis self doThat.


> A+
> --
> Serge Stinckwic
> h
>
> Int. Research Unit
>  on Modelling/Simulation of Complex Systems (UMMISCO)
> Sorbonne University
>  (SU)
> French National Research Institute for Sustainable Development (IRD)
> U
> niversity of Yaoundé I, Cameroon
> "Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for
> machines to execute."
> https://twitter.com/SergeStinckwich
>

Re: [Pharo-dev] I have a dream... or why I think that compatibility is an illusion and bring us to the past

[Serge Stinckwich]

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 2:14 AM Gabriel Cotelli  wrote:

> Looks like Christmas season opened early this year :)
>
> Jokes aside, I'm in favor of changing some of the characters we use for
> binary selectors to allow it to be used in keyword/unary messages.
>
> I'll include % in that list. For me its more useful as a way to create
> percentages ( 5 % ) than to be used as a binary message for keeping an ugly
> name from C-like languages.
>
>- · is middle dot and it's used in some math operations AFAIR
>- × is used in math also (it's used as the multiplication sign for
>scalars, cross product for vectors and cartesian product for sets)
>
> One thing that would be really cool is that we can use the full power of
> Unicode in methods/class names. Projects like polymath and DSLs can clearly
> take advantage of that. Some examples I've just invented, but can be
> supported:
>
>
>-
>
>∑ from: 1 to: 5 do: [:i | i + i squared ]
>-
>
>1 ≥ 3
>-
>
>∃ anyIn: #( 1 2 4) such: [:x | x isPrime ]
>-
>
>∅ includes: 1
>
>
>
Yes I would like to have something like that for PolyMath :-)
Is it possible to use Unicode characters for identifiers already ?

I working on the port of : https://github.com/len/Domains
to Pharo. The author modify the Cuis parser, so he can do things like that
:

"⊕ is used for direct sums, ⊗ for tensor products, × for cartesian product,
direct product of groups, ring products, and in general for categorical
products."

and also define ^ as a binary method:

"The ^ (hat) operator is used for exponentiation as well as conjugation by
group elements, and for creating free modules of tuples and matrices."

I'm not sure this is a good idea, because ^ is used also to return values.

A+
-- 
Serge Stinckwic
h

Int. Research Unit
 on Modelling/Simulation of Complex Systems (UMMISCO)
Sorbonne University
 (SU)
French National Research Institute for Sustainable Development (IRD)
U
niversity of Yaoundé I, Cameroon
"Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for
machines to execute."
https://twitter.com/SergeStinckwich

Re: [Pharo-dev] I have a dream... or why I think that compatibility is an illusion and bring us to the past

[ducasse]

> On 11 Sep 2019, at 02:13, Gabriel Cotelli  wrote:
> 
> Looks like Christmas season opened early this year :)
> 
> Jokes aside, I'm in favor of changing some of the characters we use for 
> binary selectors to allow it to be used in keyword/unary messages. 
> 
> I'll include % in that list. For me its more useful as a way to create 
> percentages ( 5 % ) than to be used as a binary message for keeping an ugly 
> name from C-like languages.

Can you explain? Because I thought that % was used and right now it is a binary 
selector so I would not change it.
> · is middle dot and it's used in some math operations AFAIR
> × is used in math also (it's used as the multiplication sign for scalars, 
> cross product for vectors and cartesian product for sets)
Yes I know. We can let them rot in peace.


> One thing that would be really cool is that we can use the full power of 
> Unicode in methods/class names. Projects like polymath and DSLs can clearly 
> take advantage of that. Some examples I've just invented, but can be 
> supported:
> 
> ∑ from: 1 to: 5 do: [:i | i + i squared ]
> 1 ≥ 3
> ∃ anyIn: #( 1 2 4) such: [:x | x isPrime ] 
> ∅ includes: 1

:) Why not :)

For me the first step is to be able to rescue ? and ! from decay and give us a 
MUCH better way to convey meaning. 
Just for the fun look at the method of the BIContext to see what I mean. 
I’m refactoring the API of the new formatter and it is so frustrating to not 
being able to express interrogation nicely.


> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 5:15 PM ducasse  > wrote:
> I would love to retract ? and ! from the list of binary selectors. 
> I’m super super frustrated that predicates cannot be easily identifiable. 
> 
> for example is 
> lineUpBlockBrackets an action or a testing method.
> 
> I think that we are trapped in mistakes from the past. 
> In racket and scheme and I guess ruby too we can use ? in the method and 
> this change the game. 
> 
> self lineUpBlockBrackets? 
> 
> We have plenty of binary selector parts that are not used and think that 
> it is frustrating. 
> 
> Let us check: 
> 
> Character specialCharacters 
> 
> '+-/\*~<>=@,%|&?!·÷±×'
> 
> + 
> - 
> /
> \
> ~
> <
> >
> =
> @
> ,
> &
> | 
> %
> 
> those are ok
> 
> I have no idea what is · nor how to type it. 
> ÷ looks from the past.
> ± so funny
> × no idea what it is and….
> 
> Then we have two that could really improve our language 
> ? and !
> 
> Do not tell me that there is a value in these selectors?
> 
> 
> (#(#+ #- #/ #\ #* #~ #< #> #= #@ #, #% #| #& #? #!) combinations 
> select: [ :each | each size = 3 and: [ each includesAnyOf: #(#? #!) ] 
> ]) collect: [ :each | each first, each second, each third ] 
> 
> #(#'+-?' #'+-!' #'+/?' #'+/!' #'+\?' #'+\!' #'+*?' #'+*!' #'+~?' #'+~!' 
> #'+?' #'+>!' #'+=?' #'+=!' #'+@?' #'+@!' #'+,?' #'+,!' #'+%?' 
> #'+%!' #'+|?' #'+|!' #'+&?' #'+&!' #'+?!' #'-/?' #'-/!' #'-\?' #'-\!' #'-*?' 
> #'-*!' #'-~?' #'-~!' #'-?' #'->!' #'-=?' #'-=!' #'-@?' #'-@!' 
> #'-,?' #'-,!' #'-%?' #'-%!' #'-|?' #'-|!' #'-&?' #'-&!' #'-?!' #'/\?' #'/\!' 
> #'/*?' #'/*!' #'/~?' #'/~!' #'/?' #'/>!' #'/=?' #'/=!' #'/@?' 
> #'/@!' #'/,?' #'/,!' #'/%?' #'/%!' #'/|?' #'/|!' #'/&?' #'/&!' #'/?!' #'\*?' 
> #'\*!' #'\~?' #'\~!' #'\?' #'\>!' #'\=?' #'\=!' #'\@?' #'\@!' 
> #'\,?' #'\,!' #'\%?' #'\%!' #'\|?' #'\|!' #'\&?' #'\&!' #'\?!' #'*~?' #'*~!' 
> #'*?' #'*>!' #'*=?' #'*=!' #'*@?' #'*@!' #'*,?' #'*,!' #'*%?' 
> #'*%!' #'*|?' #'*|!' #'*&?' #'*&!' #'*?!' #'~?' #'~>!' #'~=?' 
> #'~=!' #'~@?' #'~@!' #'~,?' #'~,!' #'~%?' #'~%!' #'~|?' #'~|!' #'~&?' #'~&!' 
> #'~?!' #'<>?' #'<>!' #'<=?' #'<=!' #'<@?' #'<@!' #'<,?' #'<,!' #'<%?' #'<%!' 
> #'<|?' #'<|!' #'<&?' #'<&!' #'=?' #'>=!' #'>@?' #'>@!' #'>,?' #'>,!' 
> #'>%?' #'>%!' #'>|?' #'>|!' #'>&?' #'>&!' #'>?!' #'=@?' #'=@!' #'=,?' #'=,!' 
> #'=%?' #'=%!' #'=|?' #'=|!' #'=&?' #'=&!' #'=?!' #'@,?' #'@,!' #'@%?' #'@%!' 
> #'@|?' #'@|!' #'@&?' #'@&!' #'@?!' #',%?' #',%!' #',|?' #',|!' #',&?' #',&!' 
> #',?!' #'%|?' #'%|!' #'%&?' #'%&!' #'%?!' #'|&?' #'|&!' #'|?!' #'&?!’)
> 
> may be this one #&?! is useful for WTF!
> 
> And because of that we sacrifice having nice method names!
> I really think that we should change that.
> 
> S. 
> 
> 
> 

Re: [Pharo-dev] I have a dream... or why I think that compatibility is an illusion and bring us to the past

[Bernardo Ezequiel Contreras]

sorry, how do you type unicode characters?

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 1:07 AM p...@highoctane.be 
wrote:

> I feel an APL forcefield growing.
>
> Phil
>
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 02:14 Gabriel Cotelli  wrote:
>
>> Looks like Christmas season opened early this year :)
>>
>> Jokes aside, I'm in favor of changing some of the characters we use for
>> binary selectors to allow it to be used in keyword/unary messages.
>>
>> I'll include % in that list. For me its more useful as a way to create
>> percentages ( 5 % ) than to be used as a binary message for keeping an ugly
>> name from C-like languages.
>>
>>- · is middle dot and it's used in some math operations AFAIR
>>- × is used in math also (it's used as the multiplication sign for
>>scalars, cross product for vectors and cartesian product for sets)
>>
>> One thing that would be really cool is that we can use the full power of
>> Unicode in methods/class names. Projects like polymath and DSLs can clearly
>> take advantage of that. Some examples I've just invented, but can be
>> supported:
>>
>>
>>-
>>
>>∑ from: 1 to: 5 do: [:i | i + i squared ]
>>-
>>
>>1 ≥ 3
>>-
>>
>>∃ anyIn: #( 1 2 4) such: [:x | x isPrime ]
>>-
>>
>>∅ includes: 1
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 5:15 PM ducasse  wrote:
>>
>>> I would love to retract ? and ! from the list of binary selectors.
>>> I’m super super frustrated that predicates cannot be easily
>>> identifiable.
>>>
>>> for example is
>>> lineUpBlockBrackets an action or a testing method.
>>>
>>> I think that we are trapped in mistakes from the past.
>>> In racket and scheme and I guess ruby too we can use ? in the method and
>>> this change the game.
>>>
>>> self lineUpBlockBrackets?
>>>
>>> We have plenty of binary selector parts that are not used and think that
>>> it is frustrating.
>>>
>>> Let us check:
>>>
>>> Character specialCharacters
>>>
>>> '+-/\*~<>=@,%|&?!·÷±×'
>>>
>>> +
>>> -
>>> /
>>> \
>>> ~
>>> <
>>> >
>>> =
>>> @
>>> ,
>>> &
>>> |
>>> %
>>>
>>> those are ok
>>>
>>> I have no idea what is · nor how to type it.
>>> ÷ looks from the past.
>>> ± so funny
>>> × no idea what it is and….
>>>
>>> Then we have two that could really improve our language
>>> ? and !
>>>
>>> Do not tell me that there is a value in these selectors?
>>>
>>>
>>> (#(#+ #- #/ #\ #* #~ #< #> #= #@ #, #% #| #& #? #!) combinations
>>> select: [ :each | each size = 3 and: [ each includesAnyOf: #(#?
>>> #!) ] ]) collect: [ :each | each first, each second, each third ]
>>>
>>> #(#'+-?' #'+-!' #'+/?' #'+/!' #'+\?' #'+\!' #'+*?' #'+*!' #'+~?' #'+~!'
>>> #'+?' #'+>!' #'+=?' #'+=!' #'+@?' #'+@!' #'+,?' #'+,!'
>>> #'+%?' #'+%!' #'+|?' #'+|!' #'+&?' #'+&!' #'+?!' #'-/?' #'-/!' #'-\?'
>>> #'-\!' #'-*?' #'-*!' #'-~?' #'-~!' #'-?' #'->!' #'-=?'
>>> #'-=!' #'-@?' #'-@!' #'-,?' #'-,!' #'-%?' #'-%!' #'-|?' #'-|!' #'-&?'
>>> #'-&!' #'-?!' #'/\?' #'/\!' #'/*?' #'/*!' #'/~?' #'/~!' #'/>> #'/>?' #'/>!' #'/=?' #'/=!' #'/@?' #'/@!' #'/,?' #'/,!' #'/%?' #'/%!'
>>> #'/|?' #'/|!' #'/&?' #'/&!' #'/?!' #'\*?' #'\*!' #'\~?' #'\~!' #'\>> #'\?' #'\>!' #'\=?' #'\=!' #'\@?' #'\@!' #'\,?' #'\,!' #'\%?'
>>> #'\%!' #'\|?' #'\|!' #'\&?' #'\&!' #'\?!' #'*~?' #'*~!' #'*>> #'*>?' #'*>!' #'*=?' #'*=!' #'*@?' #'*@!' #'*,?' #'*,!' #'*%?' #'*%!'
>>> #'*|?' #'*|!' #'*&?' #'*&!' #'*?!' #'~?' #'~>!' #'~=?'
>>> #'~=!' #'~@?' #'~@!' #'~,?' #'~,!' #'~%?' #'~%!' #'~|?' #'~|!' #'~&?'
>>> #'~&!' #'~?!' #'<>?' #'<>!' #'<=?' #'<=!' #'<@?' #'<@!' #'<,?' #'<,!'
>>> #'<%?' #'<%!' #'<|?' #'<|!' #'<&?' #'<&!' #'=?' #'>=!' #'>@?'
>>> #'>@!' #'>,?' #'>,!' #'>%?' #'>%!' #'>|?' #'>|!' #'>&?' #'>&!' #'>?!'
>>> #'=@?' #'=@!' #'=,?' #'=,!' #'=%?' #'=%!' #'=|?' #'=|!' #'=&?' #'=&!'
>>> #'=?!' #'@,?' #'@,!' #'@%?' #'@%!' #'@|?' #'@|!' #'@&?' #'@&!' #'@?!'
>>> #',%?' #',%!' #',|?' #',|!' #',&?' #',&!' #',?!' #'%|?' #'%|!' #'%&?'
>>> #'%&!' #'%?!' #'|&?' #'|&!' #'|?!' #'&?!’)
>>>
>>> may be this one #&?! is useful for WTF!
>>>
>>> And because of that we sacrifice having nice method names!
>>> I really think that we should change that.
>>>
>>> S.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

-- 
Bernardo E.C.

Sent from a cheap desktop computer in South America.

Re: [Pharo-dev] I have a dream... or why I think that compatibility is an illusion and bring us to the past

[p...@highoctane.be]

I feel an APL forcefield growing.

Phil

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 02:14 Gabriel Cotelli  wrote:

> Looks like Christmas season opened early this year :)
>
> Jokes aside, I'm in favor of changing some of the characters we use for
> binary selectors to allow it to be used in keyword/unary messages.
>
> I'll include % in that list. For me its more useful as a way to create
> percentages ( 5 % ) than to be used as a binary message for keeping an ugly
> name from C-like languages.
>
>- · is middle dot and it's used in some math operations AFAIR
>- × is used in math also (it's used as the multiplication sign for
>scalars, cross product for vectors and cartesian product for sets)
>
> One thing that would be really cool is that we can use the full power of
> Unicode in methods/class names. Projects like polymath and DSLs can clearly
> take advantage of that. Some examples I've just invented, but can be
> supported:
>
>
>-
>
>∑ from: 1 to: 5 do: [:i | i + i squared ]
>-
>
>1 ≥ 3
>-
>
>∃ anyIn: #( 1 2 4) such: [:x | x isPrime ]
>-
>
>∅ includes: 1
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 5:15 PM ducasse  wrote:
>
>> I would love to retract ? and ! from the list of binary selectors.
>> I’m super super frustrated that predicates cannot be easily identifiable.
>>
>> for example is
>> lineUpBlockBrackets an action or a testing method.
>>
>> I think that we are trapped in mistakes from the past.
>> In racket and scheme and I guess ruby too we can use ? in the method and
>> this change the game.
>>
>> self lineUpBlockBrackets?
>>
>> We have plenty of binary selector parts that are not used and think that
>> it is frustrating.
>>
>> Let us check:
>>
>> Character specialCharacters
>>
>> '+-/\*~<>=@,%|&?!·÷±×'
>>
>> +
>> -
>> /
>> \
>> ~
>> <
>> >
>> =
>> @
>> ,
>> &
>> |
>> %
>>
>> those are ok
>>
>> I have no idea what is · nor how to type it.
>> ÷ looks from the past.
>> ± so funny
>> × no idea what it is and….
>>
>> Then we have two that could really improve our language
>> ? and !
>>
>> Do not tell me that there is a value in these selectors?
>>
>>
>> (#(#+ #- #/ #\ #* #~ #< #> #= #@ #, #% #| #& #? #!) combinations
>> select: [ :each | each size = 3 and: [ each includesAnyOf: #(#?
>> #!) ] ]) collect: [ :each | each first, each second, each third ]
>>
>> #(#'+-?' #'+-!' #'+/?' #'+/!' #'+\?' #'+\!' #'+*?' #'+*!' #'+~?' #'+~!'
>> #'+?' #'+>!' #'+=?' #'+=!' #'+@?' #'+@!' #'+,?' #'+,!'
>> #'+%?' #'+%!' #'+|?' #'+|!' #'+&?' #'+&!' #'+?!' #'-/?' #'-/!' #'-\?'
>> #'-\!' #'-*?' #'-*!' #'-~?' #'-~!' #'-?' #'->!' #'-=?'
>> #'-=!' #'-@?' #'-@!' #'-,?' #'-,!' #'-%?' #'-%!' #'-|?' #'-|!' #'-&?'
>> #'-&!' #'-?!' #'/\?' #'/\!' #'/*?' #'/*!' #'/~?' #'/~!' #'/> #'/>?' #'/>!' #'/=?' #'/=!' #'/@?' #'/@!' #'/,?' #'/,!' #'/%?' #'/%!'
>> #'/|?' #'/|!' #'/&?' #'/&!' #'/?!' #'\*?' #'\*!' #'\~?' #'\~!' #'\> #'\?' #'\>!' #'\=?' #'\=!' #'\@?' #'\@!' #'\,?' #'\,!' #'\%?'
>> #'\%!' #'\|?' #'\|!' #'\&?' #'\&!' #'\?!' #'*~?' #'*~!' #'*> #'*>?' #'*>!' #'*=?' #'*=!' #'*@?' #'*@!' #'*,?' #'*,!' #'*%?' #'*%!'
>> #'*|?' #'*|!' #'*&?' #'*&!' #'*?!' #'~?' #'~>!' #'~=?'
>> #'~=!' #'~@?' #'~@!' #'~,?' #'~,!' #'~%?' #'~%!' #'~|?' #'~|!' #'~&?'
>> #'~&!' #'~?!' #'<>?' #'<>!' #'<=?' #'<=!' #'<@?' #'<@!' #'<,?' #'<,!'
>> #'<%?' #'<%!' #'<|?' #'<|!' #'<&?' #'<&!' #'=?' #'>=!' #'>@?'
>> #'>@!' #'>,?' #'>,!' #'>%?' #'>%!' #'>|?' #'>|!' #'>&?' #'>&!' #'>?!'
>> #'=@?' #'=@!' #'=,?' #'=,!' #'=%?' #'=%!' #'=|?' #'=|!' #'=&?' #'=&!'
>> #'=?!' #'@,?' #'@,!' #'@%?' #'@%!' #'@|?' #'@|!' #'@&?' #'@&!' #'@?!'
>> #',%?' #',%!' #',|?' #',|!' #',&?' #',&!' #',?!' #'%|?' #'%|!' #'%&?'
>> #'%&!' #'%?!' #'|&?' #'|&!' #'|?!' #'&?!’)
>>
>> may be this one #&?! is useful for WTF!
>>
>> And because of that we sacrifice having nice method names!
>> I really think that we should change that.
>>
>> S.
>>
>>
>>
>>

Re: [Pharo-dev] I have a dream... or why I think that compatibility is an illusion and bring us to the past

[Gabriel Cotelli]

Looks like Christmas season opened early this year :)

Jokes aside, I'm in favor of changing some of the characters we use for
binary selectors to allow it to be used in keyword/unary messages.

I'll include % in that list. For me its more useful as a way to create
percentages ( 5 % ) than to be used as a binary message for keeping an ugly
name from C-like languages.

   - · is middle dot and it's used in some math operations AFAIR
   - × is used in math also (it's used as the multiplication sign for
   scalars, cross product for vectors and cartesian product for sets)

One thing that would be really cool is that we can use the full power of
Unicode in methods/class names. Projects like polymath and DSLs can clearly
take advantage of that. Some examples I've just invented, but can be
supported:


   -

   ∑ from: 1 to: 5 do: [:i | i + i squared ]
   -

   1 ≥ 3
   -

   ∃ anyIn: #( 1 2 4) such: [:x | x isPrime ]
   -

   ∅ includes: 1




On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 5:15 PM ducasse  wrote:

> I would love to retract ? and ! from the list of binary selectors.
> I’m super super frustrated that predicates cannot be easily identifiable.
>
> for example is
> lineUpBlockBrackets an action or a testing method.
>
> I think that we are trapped in mistakes from the past.
> In racket and scheme and I guess ruby too we can use ? in the method and
> this change the game.
>
> self lineUpBlockBrackets?
>
> We have plenty of binary selector parts that are not used and think that
> it is frustrating.
>
> Let us check:
>
> Character specialCharacters
>
> '+-/\*~<>=@,%|&?!·÷±×'
>
> +
> -
> /
> \
> ~
> <
> >
> =
> @
> ,
> &
> |
> %
>
> those are ok
>
> I have no idea what is · nor how to type it.
> ÷ looks from the past.
> ± so funny
> × no idea what it is and….
>
> Then we have two that could really improve our language
> ? and !
>
> Do not tell me that there is a value in these selectors?
>
>
> (#(#+ #- #/ #\ #* #~ #< #> #= #@ #, #% #| #& #? #!) combinations
> select: [ :each | each size = 3 and: [ each includesAnyOf: #(#?
> #!) ] ]) collect: [ :each | each first, each second, each third ]
>
> #(#'+-?' #'+-!' #'+/?' #'+/!' #'+\?' #'+\!' #'+*?' #'+*!' #'+~?' #'+~!'
> #'+?' #'+>!' #'+=?' #'+=!' #'+@?' #'+@!' #'+,?' #'+,!'
> #'+%?' #'+%!' #'+|?' #'+|!' #'+&?' #'+&!' #'+?!' #'-/?' #'-/!' #'-\?'
> #'-\!' #'-*?' #'-*!' #'-~?' #'-~!' #'-?' #'->!' #'-=?'
> #'-=!' #'-@?' #'-@!' #'-,?' #'-,!' #'-%?' #'-%!' #'-|?' #'-|!' #'-&?'
> #'-&!' #'-?!' #'/\?' #'/\!' #'/*?' #'/*!' #'/~?' #'/~!' #'/ #'/>?' #'/>!' #'/=?' #'/=!' #'/@?' #'/@!' #'/,?' #'/,!' #'/%?' #'/%!'
> #'/|?' #'/|!' #'/&?' #'/&!' #'/?!' #'\*?' #'\*!' #'\~?' #'\~!' #'\ #'\?' #'\>!' #'\=?' #'\=!' #'\@?' #'\@!' #'\,?' #'\,!' #'\%?'
> #'\%!' #'\|?' #'\|!' #'\&?' #'\&!' #'\?!' #'*~?' #'*~!' #'* #'*>?' #'*>!' #'*=?' #'*=!' #'*@?' #'*@!' #'*,?' #'*,!' #'*%?' #'*%!'
> #'*|?' #'*|!' #'*&?' #'*&!' #'*?!' #'~?' #'~>!' #'~=?'
> #'~=!' #'~@?' #'~@!' #'~,?' #'~,!' #'~%?' #'~%!' #'~|?' #'~|!' #'~&?'
> #'~&!' #'~?!' #'<>?' #'<>!' #'<=?' #'<=!' #'<@?' #'<@!' #'<,?' #'<,!'
> #'<%?' #'<%!' #'<|?' #'<|!' #'<&?' #'<&!' #'=?' #'>=!' #'>@?'
> #'>@!' #'>,?' #'>,!' #'>%?' #'>%!' #'>|?' #'>|!' #'>&?' #'>&!' #'>?!'
> #'=@?' #'=@!' #'=,?' #'=,!' #'=%?' #'=%!' #'=|?' #'=|!' #'=&?' #'=&!'
> #'=?!' #'@,?' #'@,!' #'@%?' #'@%!' #'@|?' #'@|!' #'@&?' #'@&!' #'@?!'
> #',%?' #',%!' #',|?' #',|!' #',&?' #',&!' #',?!' #'%|?' #'%|!' #'%&?'
> #'%&!' #'%?!' #'|&?' #'|&!' #'|?!' #'&?!’)
>
> may be this one #&?! is useful for WTF!
>
> And because of that we sacrifice having nice method names!
> I really think that we should change that.
>
> S.
>
>
>
>

Re: [Pharo-dev] I have a dream... or why I think that compatibility is an illusion and bring us to the past

[p...@highoctane.be]

Yes, it would.

On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 10:55 PM Sven Van Caekenberghe  wrote:

>
>
> > On 10 Sep 2019, at 22:14, ducasse  wrote:
> >
> > Then we have two that could really improve our language
> >   ? and !
>
> I never thought about that, but indeed, that would be quite nice.
>
>
>

Re: [Pharo-dev] I have a dream... or why I think that compatibility is an illusion and bring us to the past

[Sven Van Caekenberghe]

> On 10 Sep 2019, at 22:14, ducasse  wrote:
> 
> Then we have two that could really improve our language 
>   ? and !

I never thought about that, but indeed, that would be quite nice.

[Pharo-dev] I have a dream... or why I think that compatibility is an illusion and bring us to the past

[ducasse]

I would love to retract ? and ! from the list of binary selectors. 
I’m super super frustrated that predicates cannot be easily identifiable. 

for example is 
lineUpBlockBrackets an action or a testing method.

I think that we are trapped in mistakes from the past. 
In racket and scheme and I guess ruby too we can use ? in the method and 
this change the game. 

self lineUpBlockBrackets? 

We have plenty of binary selector parts that are not used and think that 
it is frustrating. 

Let us check: 

Character specialCharacters 

'+-/\*~<>=@,%|&?!·÷±×'

+ 
- 
/
\
~
<
>
=
@
,
&
| 
%

those are ok

I have no idea what is · nor how to type it. 
÷ looks from the past.
± so funny
× no idea what it is and….

Then we have two that could really improve our language 
? and !

Do not tell me that there is a value in these selectors?


(#(#+ #- #/ #\ #* #~ #< #> #= #@ #, #% #| #& #? #!) combinations 
select: [ :each | each size = 3 and: [ each includesAnyOf: #(#? #!) ] 
]) collect: [ :each | each first, each second, each third ] 

#(#'+-?' #'+-!' #'+/?' #'+/!' #'+\?' #'+\!' #'+*?' #'+*!' #'+~?' #'+~!' #'+?' #'+>!' #'+=?' #'+=!' #'+@?' #'+@!' #'+,?' #'+,!' #'+%?' #'+%!' 
#'+|?' #'+|!' #'+&?' #'+&!' #'+?!' #'-/?' #'-/!' #'-\?' #'-\!' #'-*?' #'-*!' 
#'-~?' #'-~!' #'-?' #'->!' #'-=?' #'-=!' #'-@?' #'-@!' #'-,?' 
#'-,!' #'-%?' #'-%!' #'-|?' #'-|!' #'-&?' #'-&!' #'-?!' #'/\?' #'/\!' #'/*?' 
#'/*!' #'/~?' #'/~!' #'/?' #'/>!' #'/=?' #'/=!' #'/@?' #'/@!' 
#'/,?' #'/,!' #'/%?' #'/%!' #'/|?' #'/|!' #'/&?' #'/&!' #'/?!' #'\*?' #'\*!' 
#'\~?' #'\~!' #'\?' #'\>!' #'\=?' #'\=!' #'\@?' #'\@!' #'\,?' 
#'\,!' #'\%?' #'\%!' #'\|?' #'\|!' #'\&?' #'\&!' #'\?!' #'*~?' #'*~!' #'*?' #'*>!' #'*=?' #'*=!' #'*@?' #'*@!' #'*,?' #'*,!' #'*%?' #'*%!' 
#'*|?' #'*|!' #'*&?' #'*&!' #'*?!' #'~?' #'~>!' #'~=?' #'~=!' 
#'~@?' #'~@!' #'~,?' #'~,!' #'~%?' #'~%!' #'~|?' #'~|!' #'~&?' #'~&!' #'~?!' 
#'<>?' #'<>!' #'<=?' #'<=!' #'<@?' #'<@!' #'<,?' #'<,!' #'<%?' #'<%!' #'<|?' 
#'<|!' #'<&?' #'<&!' #'=?' #'>=!' #'>@?' #'>@!' #'>,?' #'>,!' #'>%?' 
#'>%!' #'>|?' #'>|!' #'>&?' #'>&!' #'>?!' #'=@?' #'=@!' #'=,?' #'=,!' #'=%?' 
#'=%!' #'=|?' #'=|!' #'=&?' #'=&!' #'=?!' #'@,?' #'@,!' #'@%?' #'@%!' #'@|?' 
#'@|!' #'@&?' #'@&!' #'@?!' #',%?' #',%!' #',|?' #',|!' #',&?' #',&!' #',?!' 
#'%|?' #'%|!' #'%&?' #'%&!' #'%?!' #'|&?' #'|&!' #'|?!' #'&?!’)

may be this one #&?! is useful for WTF!

And because of that we sacrifice having nice method names!
I really think that we should change that.

S.