> On 14 Nov 2017, at 16:49 , Denis Kudriashov <dionisi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> squares := (1 to: 1000) ~> #squared map ~> 1000 take ~> Set.
> fileIn readStream ~> #isSeparator filter ~> fileOut writeStream.
I’ve actually done something very similar for collections in Grace, except that
I use >> as the operator symbol.
My original idea was when implementing Grace’s filter and map methods, which
correspond to select: and collect: in Smalltalk. I wanted to avoid species and
it’s spawn. So instead I made filter and map produce streams of values, which
can then be >>’d into the container of the programmer’s choice.
In Grace we can write now
(1..100).filter { each → each.isEven } >> set.empty
I’ve been vacillating over whether the final sink should be a collection
factory (like Set) or a collection instance (which might be empty or might
already contain some elements). We could also make >> accept a block as its
argument, and eliminate either the map or filter word, but not both.
Andrew
