---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Nicolai Hess <nicolaih...@web.de>
Date: 2015-03-16 13:40 GMT+01:00
Subject: Re: [Pharo-users] when iterating over a collection how to
determine the current objects index
To: "jtuc...@objektfabrik.de" <jtuc...@objektfabrik.de>
2015-03-16 12:19 GMT+01:00 jtuc...@objektfabrik.de <jtuc...@objektfabrik.de>
:
> Nicolai,
>
>
>
>
>
> Am 16.03.15 um 11:59 schrieb Nicolai Hess:
>
>
> 2015-03-14 11:55 GMT+01:00 Sean P. DeNigris <s...@clipperadams.com>:
>
>> Marcus Denker-4 wrote
>> > which version do we pick? We should pick one, rename the callers
>>
>> As someone mentioned earlier in the thread, #doWithIndex: has the
>> advantage
>> of mirroring the argument order (although this still should be
>> documented),
>> and it's the one most people are probably most familiar with, so IMHO it
>> makes sense to standardize on that.
>>
>
> I like withIndexDo: because code like
>
> so how would you name the current #do: if you had the choice?
>
> I still think this looks very logical:
>
> #do:
> #do:separatedBy:
> #doWithIndex:
> #doWithSomeOtherSpecialty:andEvenMoreStuff:
>
> And then there still ist the question if the order of the arguments should
> be changed:
>
> today:
>
> do: [:each| ]
> doWithIndex: [:each :index| ]
>
> future:
>
> do: [:each| ]
> withIndexDo: [:idx :each | ]
>
> Do you really think that is better?
>
> I think that if we move the withIndex part to the beginning of the
> message, it overstates the importance of the fact that we also need the
> index inside the iteration block.
>
>
>
> aCollection withIndexDo: aBlock
> reads like
> "a collection with index" do
>
> This would make sense if it was a Collection with an Index.
>
no, that is the point.
A collection with no index:
aCollection do:
A collection with no index, but iterator over it like it had one:
aCollection withIndex do:
>From the method comment:
withIndexDo: elementAndIndexBlock
"Just like with:do: except that the iteration index supplies the second
argument to the block."
it looks like this method derives from :
SequenceableCollection>>#with: otherCollection do: twoArgBlock
"Evaluate twoArgBlock with corresponding elements from this collection
and otherCollection."
> If there was an IndexedCollection class and maybe some message like
> asIndexedCollection or withIndex, which turns any collection into an
> IndexedCollection. Then the message might be a shortcut for "make thsi an
> indexed collection and iterate over it using its index" - comparable to
> Dictionary>>#keysAndValuesDo: - but please be aware that a Dictionary has
> keys and values by its very own nature. A Collection doesn't have an index
> (other than the fact that the elements are stored in some non-guarantueed
> order).
>
>
> This may all sound quite picky, but I think this is plain wrong and you
> are about to introduce not only incompatible, but also misleading naming
> for methods that exist on all Smalltalk dialects.
>
I don't want to rename it, it is already there. I just said I like the one
better than the other one.
But it is not really important, I am fine with either or both. This was
just my explanation why I would choose withIndexDo:
>
> Joachim
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----
>> Cheers,
>> Sean
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://forum.world.st/when-iterating-over-a-collection-how-to-determine-the-current-objects-index-tp4810920p4811848.html
>> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Objektfabrik Joachim Tuchel mailto:jtuc...@objektfabrik.de
> <jtuc...@objektfabrik.de>
> Fliederweg 1 http://www.objektfabrik.de
> D-71640 Ludwigsburg http://joachimtuchel.wordpress.com
> Telefon: +49 7141 56 10 86 0 Fax: +49 7141 56 10 86 1
>
>
>
