Note that 'find by example' seems magical, but it isn't, really. The set of discoverable selectors is limited. See MethodFinder
> On 30 Mar 2019, at 13:26, Tim Mackinnon <tim@testit.works> wrote: > > I actually keep meaning to try and plug this in to spotter so we get all of > this stuff in one easy place (I think its pretty simple, just haven’t had a > chance to try it yet). > > Tim > >> On 30 Mar 2019, at 09:26, Peter Kenny <pe...@pbkresearch.co.uk> wrote: >> >> Ben >> >> Thanks for pointing this out - I was not aware of it. At first sight the >> notation is completely opaque - I had no idea what the query in you post >> meant until I read through the instructions in Finder. Now I have tried it, >> it looks quite handy. >> >> Minor nit-pick: The instructions say the components of a example are >> separated by a period. This should read 'period plus space'; I put in #(1 2 >> 3 4).0.4 as an example and it said no such method. Granted the example >> quoted in the instructions has spaces, but a lazy so-and-so like me can be >> guaranteed to foul it up. >> >> Peter >> >> >> Ben Coman wrote >>> On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 at 01:09, Peter Kenny < >> >>> peter@.co >> >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> Tim >>>> >>>> Going back to your original question, the answer is there all the time >>>> but >>>> buried in the enormous method dictionaries of the Collection subclasses. >>> >>> >>> And we have Tools > Finder > Examples > #(10 20 30 40) . 5 . 10 >>> to help unbury such methods... >>> >>> >>> >>>> If >>>> you look at SequenceableCollection>>atWrap: you will see that it does >>>> exactly what you want. >>>> >>>> To get the item before the first, i.e. the zeroth: >>>> #(1 2 3 4) atWrap: 0 => 4 >>>> >>>> To get the item after the last: >>>> #(1 2 3 4) atWrap: 5 => 1 >>>> >>>> As seen here, the method is inherited by Array, so it should do all you >>>> want. >>>> >>>> HTH >>>> >>>> Peter >>>> >>>> >>> >>> --------------- >>> >>>> >>>> Marcus Denker-4 wrote >>>>>> On 29 Mar 2019, at 14:24, Ben Coman < >>>>>> I believe there have been some proposals to separate out the Process >>>>>> related LinkedList stuff, but I can't remember the exact arguments. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, we did that… there is now ProcessList. >>>>> >>>>> We ran into that problem far too often “hey, LinkedList can be cleaned >>>> up >>>>> easily like this!” —> boom, everything broken. >>>>> >>>>> Now we have ProcessList where it matters if code is changed to >>>> introduce >>>> a >>>>> message send more and LinkedList where it does not. >>>> >>> >>> Cool !! >>> >>> cheers -ben >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html >
