As you noted, wrapping going forward:
seq at: index \\ seq size + 1
Wrapping going backward is nearly as easy:
seq at: (index - 2) \\ seq size + 1
This would not work with #rem:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2019 at 04:13, Tim Mackinnon wrote:
> Hey guys - I’m wondering if someone might have a nice way of se
Hi Ben - yes you are right that in this case that tool would work (and it’s
magical when it does).
While I sometimes use it - it is a bit buried away and rather clunky to specify
things (it really could use some Spotter treatment and get plugged into Spotter
).
However the biggest issue with i
This loop is a special case.
size := 10.
prevIndex := size. prevValue := seq at: prevIndex.
thisIndex := 1.thisValue := seq at: thisIndex.
nextIndex := 2.nextIndex := seq at: nextIndex.
[thisIndex <= size] whileTrue: [
...
prevIndex := thisIndex. prevValue := thisValue.
thisIndex := n
If a Smalltalk system did have a "cyclic" indexing
method that did "self at: (index - 1) \\ self size + 1",
where would it be?
Since it makes sense for all and only sequences,
we'd expect it to be in SequenceableCollection.
Since it is like #at:, and #at: is an 'accessing'
method, we'd expect to fi
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 componen
You - know, this has made me realise that I don’t understand the difference
between #messages and #implementors in Spotter? In my haste I’ve always jumped
on the latter (as its first in the spotter list) - and implementors has much
more methods. So thats a good tip.
In realising this now, I’m w
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 wrote:
>
> Ben
>
> Thanks for pointing this out - I was not aware of it.
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 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 thi
Sven - Thanks for mentioning this - it's fascinating to see how it works.
Even though it's only (!) 900+ selectors, it must have been a nightmare to
construct - the layout of the source code suggests there was a lot of manual
effort. Peter
Sven Van Caekenberghe-2 wrote
> Note that 'find by exampl
Hello,
Im busy with a new challenge from exercism.
Where I have to keep track of a robot , where it facing and on that
coordinate the robot is.
so I made this function what the test wanted
createDirection: aString position: aCollection
self robot: (Robot directionLooking: aString) yoursel
Didn't you forget to return (^) an instance from #directionLooking:?
And why do you need to send #yourself?
сб, 30 марта 2019 г. в 21:19, Roelof Wobben :
> Hello,
>
> Im busy with a new challenge from exercism.
> Where I have to keep track of a robot , where it facing and on that
> coordinate t
On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 at 20:25, Tim Mackinnon wrote:
> You - know, this has made me realise that I don’t understand the
> difference between #messages and #implementors in Spotter? In my haste I’ve
> always jumped on the latter (as its first in the spotter list) - and
> implementors has much more m
Question 1. Should that be #asDictionary?
Question 2. If not, what's a Dictonary?
Question 3. I see you are using self-encapsulation,
with a getter 'self robot'
and a setter 'self robot: something'.
Of course that means that outside code
can fr
Op 31-3-2019 om 03:47 schreef Richard
O'Keefe:
Question 1. Should
that be #asDictionary?
yes, it does.
Question 2. If not,
what's a Dictonary?
Question 3. I see you
14 matches
Mail list logo
