Evan Donahue wrote
> It is also worth mentioning that there is now also the Cons library
> available
> through the Pharo6 catalog browser… just creates an iterator and never
> actually creates the whole list…The code is stable and in use in several
> of my projects.
Very interesting! Thanks :)
Hi!
No stress is good news!
- what is the API in terms of vocabulary (ie drop the same as reject)
These are the operations implemented so far. |= means "satisfies", i.e.,
evaluate to true.
Drop drop first n elements
DropWhile drop first elements |= a block
Filter* pick
It is also worth mentioning that there is now also the Cons library available
through the Pharo6 catalog browser. Cons is a lazy linked list that can be
used like a normal linked list, but can also be used as an iterator over
streams or infinite-sequence-generating blocks, using the usual Pharo
col
I thought about that for my own Smalltalk, but then realised
that I didn't know whether #upTo:timesSelect: was bounding
the number of elements *considered* or the number of elements
in the *result*, and I could argue either way. Arguably the cleanest
way would be to have something like
(LimitedEn
My own Smalltalk has these:
Enumerable
methods for: 'enumerating'
limit: n do: aBlock
"Pass elements of the receiver to aBlock one at a time,
as for #do:, but stop after n elements. n must be a
non-negative SmallInteger. Which elements you get is
for the receiver
I like the pharophile :)
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 10:57 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote:
> yes, we need composition to avoid API explosion (things are already very bad
> in this respect)
>
>> On 22 Jan 2018, at 10:38, Guillermo Polito wrote:
>>
>> In most collection libraries I know there is th
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 11:26 AM, Steffen Märcker wrote:
> Hi!
>
> this is straightforward with Transducers, e.g.,
>
>> (Take n: 5) <~ #(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8).
>
> or
>>
>> #(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8) transduce take: 5.
>
>
> The different primitives like take, drop, map, filter, etc. are composable
> and do no
2018-01-22 6:57 GMT-03:00 Sven Van Caekenberghe :
> yes, we need composition to avoid API explosion (things are already very bad
> in this respect)
And the names of the proposed selectors suggests it could be even worst.
+1 to composition.
Esteban A. Maringolo
Hi!
this is straightforward with Transducers, e.g.,
(Take n: 5) <~ #(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8).
or
#(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8) transduce take: 5.
The different primitives like take, drop, map, filter, etc. are composable
and do not generate intermediate representations.
The bad news are, that the Pharo por
yes, we need composition to avoid API explosion (things are already very bad in
this respect)
> On 22 Jan 2018, at 10:38, Guillermo Polito wrote:
>
> In most collection libraries I know there is the "take" function coming from
> the functional world that does that:
>
> #(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8) take
In most collection libraries I know there is the "take" function coming
from the functional world that does that:
#(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8) take: 5
=> #(1 2 3 4 5)
#(1 2 3 4) take: 5
=> #(1 2 3 4)
Now, I understand there are two different things in here.
- First is the fact that we would like to a
On 22 January 2018 at 00:47, Stephane Ducasse wrote:
> Hi Ben and Clement
>
> I have a collection (a dictionary in my case) and I want to get
> maximum 5 bindings out of it and iterate on them.
> I want keysAndValuesDo: or do: but only up to 5 elements.
>
> aDict atMax: 5 do: [:each | ]
"atMax" s
SomeCollection every: 5 do: [:subset | subset collect: [:each | ...]]
etc.
If you want the first five only, return from the do: block.
Possibly, #every: by itself answers an iterator / collection conforming
instance.
On Jan 21, 2018 14:47, "James Foster" wrote:
> Since ‘atMax:’ doesn’t seem as
Since ‘atMax:’ doesn’t seem as clear to me, I’d prefer ‘upToMax:’ or ‘withMax:’
or (especially) the following:
upTo: anInteger timesDo: aBlock
upTo: anInteger timesSelect: aBlock
upTo: anInteger timesCollect: aBlock
James Foster
> On Jan 21, 2018, at 8:56 AM, Stephane Ducasse wrote:
>
> I tho
On 22 January 2018 at 00:47, Stephane Ducasse wrote:
> Hi Ben and Clement
>
> I have a collection (a dictionary in my case) and I want to get
> maximum 5 bindings out of it and iterate on them.
> I want keysAndValuesDo: or do: but only up to 5 elements.
>
> aDict atMax: 5 do: [:each | ]
>
> So I l
Now an iterator getting atMax: x elements could be better because we
could them combined it with collect:, detect:...
Stef
On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 5:56 PM, Stephane Ducasse
wrote:
> I thought about something like that...
>
> SequenceableCollection >> atMax: numberOfItems do: aBlock
> "Execut
I thought about something like that...
SequenceableCollection >> atMax: numberOfItems do: aBlock
"Execute the iteration with at the maximum numberOfItems. If the
receiver contains less than numberOfItems iterate them all."
1 to: (numberOfItems min: self size) do: [:index | aBlock value:
(s
Hi Ben and Clement
I have a collection (a dictionary in my case) and I want to get
maximum 5 bindings out of it and iterate on them.
I want keysAndValuesDo: or do: but only up to 5 elements.
aDict atMax: 5 do: [:each | ]
So I learned from:to:do:
aCollection atMax: 5 do: [:each | ]
Does it make
I don't think we do. Do you need it on SequenceableCollection or
HashedCollection too ?
Recently I was trying to iterate over the first N elements of a collection
and since there was no #first:do: I used #from:to:do:. I guess you could
use that too:
aCollection from: 1 to: (aCollection size min:
On 21 January 2018 at 18:36, Stephane Ducasse wrote:
> Hi
>
> I would like to iterate at max on a certain amount of elements in a
> collection.
> And I was wondering if we have such iterator.
I'm not clear what functionality your asking for. Could you present
it as code & result if you assumed
Hi
I would like to iterate at max on a certain amount of elements in a collection.
And I was wondering if we have such iterator.
Stef
21 matches
Mail list logo
