Maybe 'strain' could be a culinary synonym? ;-) Best wishes
David Glasgow Sent from my iPad via iBrain & iFingers LinkedIn > On 5 Aug 2018, at 16:36, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode > <use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > > This is getting pretty contorted and is becoming less like natural language. > For what it's worth, I have never been confused by the current use of filter. > I think of it as pouring soup through a wire strainer. Filtering "with" keeps > the solids. Filtering "without" dumps them and keeps the liquid. > > Maybe I cook too much. In any case, the solids (what remains after filtering) > are the things you're either keeping or discarding. > -- > Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com > HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com >> On August 5, 2018 9:38:45 AM Brian Milby via use-livecode >> <use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: >> >> Probably better: >> >> >> filter [{lines | items | keys | elements} of] filterSource {keeping | >> discarding | with | without | [not] matching} {[{wildcard | regex} pattern] >> filterPattern | where filterExpression} [into targetContainer] >> >> >> So Monte’s example would be: >> filter keys of tFoo keeping where tFoo[each] is not tBar[each] >> (And to get Richard’s result you would need to follow this by an intersect >> each way. The filter would replace the repeat loop in Mark’s solution) >> >> >> Even though “with where” would be syntactically correct, the preferred usage >> would be “keeping where”. >> >> Thanks, >> Brian >>> On Aug 5, 2018, 7:32 AM -0500, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode >>> <use-livecode@lists.runrev.com>, wrote: >>> On 2018-08-05 07:31, Monte Goulding via use-livecode wrote: >>> > Given I have been wanting to do ^ for a couple of years I decided to >>> > just go ahead and do it… might be a while before we have time to >>> > bikeshed the syntax though. >>> > >>> > https://github.com/livecode/livecode/pull/6626 >>> > <https://github.com/livecode/livecode/pull/6626> >>> > >>> > Examples: >>> > local tFoo,tBar >>> > put "foo" into tFoo[1] >>> > put "bar" into tFoo[2] >>> > put "baz" into tBar[1] >>> > put "bar" into tBar[2] >>> > filter keys of tFoo with expression tFoo[each] is tBar[each] >>> > — tFoo now has one key 2 which is `bar` >>> > >>> > put “yes,foo” & return & “no,bar” into tFoo >>> > filter lines of tFoo with expression item 1 of each is “yes” >>> > >>> > We could feasibly not use `with|without` for this forcing the >>> > expression to return true to filter. If we went that way then perhaps >>> > `where` would be nicest? >>> > >>> > filter lines of tFoo where item 1 of each is “yes” >>> >>> Geez @Monte - you do like creating work for me don't you! ;) >>> >>> In terms of syntax - definitely not 'with expression' - that's ghastly. >>> It is a 'where' clause - in the same vein as SQL and other query >>> languages - so no bike-shedding required there (also, pleasingly, all >>> other 'filter' types become sugar for a where clause using operators >>> which the language does not have yet - but obviously we have the code >>> for...). >>> >>> If we are going to bike-shed over syntax - can we do so over the use of >>> 'filter' itself. I don't know why but I have a complete mental block >>> about it - regardless of how many times I use it or read it - I always >>> have to 'double-think' to work out what form to use - is that just me? >>> >>> filter <things> of X with Y >>> filter <things> of X without Y >>> >>> I couldn't tell you just by looking *what* they actually do. I'm not >>> sure why but I think the verb is actually wrong - in all cases you have >>> a set of things and you are either keeping an element, or removing an >>> element... So I wonder if: >>> >>> keep <things> of X where Y >>> discard <things> of X where Y >>> >>> (I'm not particularly attached to keep/discard - but it does need to be >>> a pair of 'true' antonyms which don't intersect with any other 'core' >>> pairs of such things we have). >>> >>> Might be more appropriate? >>> >>> Of course, maybe it is just 'with' / 'without' are inappropriate, and >>> 'where' might actually help me retrain my mind to see with/without as >>> the sugar they truly are. >>> >>> Anyway, thought it worth throwing out there to see what people think? >>> >>> Warmest Regards, >>> >>> Mark. >>> >>> -- >>> Mark Waddingham ~ m...@livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/ >>> LiveCode: Everyone can create apps >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> use-livecode mailing list >>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com >>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your >>> subscription preferences: >>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode >> _______________________________________________ >> use-livecode mailing list >> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com >> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription >> preferences: >> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode > > > > > _______________________________________________ > use-livecode mailing list > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription > preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
