On 1 November 2016 at 11:31, jtuc...@objektfabrik.de < jtuc...@objektfabrik.de> wrote:
> Phil, > > > I see your point but disagree. > I don't use Pharo regularly, so I cannot currently check if the > implementation around this emptiness check is complete. > > With complete I mean that following your logic, theere should be at least > implementations of > > ifEmpty: > ifNotEmpty: > ifEmpty:ifNotEmpty: > ifEmptyOrNil: > ifEmptyOrNil:otherwise: > why pollution? it just convenience method. mind you, that #isEmpty is also convenience method, without it you would do it like: myArray size isZero ifTrue: [] of wait.. #isZero also convenience method... so if you elitist then you have to write it like that: myArray size = 0 ifTrue: [] And that , to my opinion, adds even more pollution to the user code, because first, it is longer, and second #ifEmpty: much better clarifies the intent of author, comparing to size = 0 > I really have to check for the size of collections very often, and the > size of 1 is a very frequent case. So why not add: > > ifExactlyOne: > ifSizeIs:do: > ifSizeIsGreaterThan:do:otherwiseDo: > > You get the picture. I strongly believe this leads to pollution and ends > up in a mess. > We could save so much typing and make our programs so much more readable > if we only were a bit more creative, right? ;-) > A DSL is another story, though. If you write a Library that makes handling > Collections nicer, this is okay and the methods are good to exist in its > context. But they shouldn't necessarily all be part of the base image. > > > Don't get me wrong: if you and the Pharo community agree on lots of > convenience methods, that is okay for me, and I find myself adding such > methods to VA Smalltalk from time to time. I appreciate many of them being > brought to VA ST in Grease. > > Sometimes, this is simply a question of taste, sometimes it saves typing, > sometimes it helps to improve readability of code. > > But I wouldn't go so far to tell people they should better use such a > method as a general advice. I would probably tell them: "look, here's a > method I find much more elegant, you could *also* use that to save > typing/increase readability". > > Just my 2 cents, and highly off topic ;-) > > Joachim > > > > > Am 01.11.16 um 08:43 schrieb p...@highoctane.be: > > Because I grew tired of the isEmpty ifTrue: [ ] all over the place. > And ifEmpty has the right semantics for my use cases (like assignment). > > I do not really care about portability, I am doing Pharo only. > > Phil > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 5:30 PM, jtuc...@objektfabrik.de < > jtuc...@objektfabrik.de> wrote: > >> Am 31.10.16 um 15:59 schrieb p...@highoctane.be: >> >> but you should use myCollection ifEmpty: [ ... ] >> >> >> interesting. Why do you think so? what if you wanted your code to be >> portable across Smalltalk dialects? >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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 >> >> >> -- > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > > > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
