Ah, I now see my googing issue, because apparently noone knows whether the name is Xtreams or Xstreams
If I google 'Pharo Xtreams' (which is the correct name it seems) I get fuckall, but if I google 'Pharo Xstreams' I get the link as second result, just because someone misspelled the filename. -_- Is there a build for the PharoLimbo, or do I have to compile it myself? Peter On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 09:06:34PM +0100, p...@highoctane.be wrote: > There is also this > > https://github.com/SquareBracketAssociates/PharoLimbo/tree/master/Xtreams > > > > On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 3:08 PM, Peter Uhnak <i.uh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 02:01:59PM +0100, Denis Kudriashov wrote: > > > Hi. > > > > > > 2017-01-20 16:15 GMT+01:00 Peter Uhnak <i.uh...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > In Ruby it is dead simple: > > > > str[/\[(.*)\]/,1].hex # "=> 37" > > > > > > > > > > I always wondering when people think it is dead simple. > > > I use streams for such cases. It is logical, readable and dead simple > > > > I've never mentioned readability, because the code is throwaway. > > I guess if you are not using regexes it could look odd, but as a linux > > user it is very casual; if I had to extract the information I would just > > pipe it through sed or grep. > > > > I wouldn't use such thing in code that I want to keep, but I explicitly > > mentioned that. > > > > > > > approach without crappy syntax. And with Xtreams library it become much > > > more easy and fun > > > > Are there any docs for Xtreams? I found several repositories, but none > > explain what Xtreams even is. > > > > --- > > > > > > > >> In Ruby it is dead simple: > > >> > > > > > > and dead unreadable > > > > > > Pharo way is both dead simple and dead readable > > > > Dtto as above. Readability was never a question. And if it was, then you > > just doubled the regex complexity, and made the code more confusing by > > turning the problem upside down, due to the limited API. > > > > Complaining about the compact syntax makes as much sense as complaining > > that `1+2` is too cryptic and should be written as `1 digitAdd: 2` (which > > you can do btw); the point of compactness is that when you know what you > > are doing you can save some time. > > > > You can always write .match() instead of []; e.g. in python: > > > > int(re.split('\[(.*)\]', str)[1], 16) > > int(re.search('\[(.*)\]', str).group(1), 16) > > > > But my point was not addressing this particular problem, but the general > > problem --- I often find it much easier to preprocess data with standard > > linux tools and then feed it to Pharo then to try to do the same in Pharo > > itself. > > > > Peter > > > > > >
