Hi Stef, from the (incomplete) sample it is unclear what is really needed: 1. Both return the same result: #(#(1 1 1) (2 2 2) (3 3 3) #(4 4 4)) which is syntactically equal to #(#(1 1 1) #(2 2 2) #(3 3 3) #(4 4 4))
So why did you leave out the # for the contained sub-array with 2's and 3's? 2. When the result is equal in both examples why give a different argument like 3 and 4? 3. What about edge case inputs like: #(1 1 1 2 2 2 4 4 4) not having sucessors/predecessor order #(2 2 2 1 1 1 3 3 3 4 4 4) with different order (not ascending) #(1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4) where 1 is included more often than the other 4. ... Nonetheless: the closest that might possibly be of use is #groupByRuns: message #(1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4) groupByRuns: [:e | e ] -> #(#(1 1 1) #(2 2 2) #(3 3 3) #(4 4 4)) Have fun T. Gesendet: Mittwoch, 03. Juni 2020 um 22:53 Uhr Von: "Stéphane Ducasse" <[email protected]> An: "Pharo Development List" <[email protected]> Betreff: [Pharo-dev] #(1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4) . 3 -> #(#(1 1 1) (2 2 2) (3 3 3) #(4 4 4)) Hi guys do you know if we have around a method doing the following? #(1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4) . 3 -> #(#(1 1 1) (2 2 2) (3 3 3) #(4 4 4)) it could also be another one #(1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4) . 4 -> #(#(1 1 1) (2 2 2) (3 3 3) #(4 4 4)) S -------------------------------------------- Stéphane Ducasse http://stephane.ducasse.free.fr / http://www.pharo.org[http://www.pharo.org] 03 59 35 87 52 Assistant: Aurore Dalle FAX 03 59 57 78 50 TEL 03 59 35 86 16 S. Ducasse - Inria 40, avenue Halley, Parc Scientifique de la Haute Borne, Bât.A, Park Plaza Villeneuve d'Ascq 59650 France
