Hi dear great OO designers
Here is a little challenges for your brainy souls :)
In Moose when we compute metrics it may happen than a tool (often external to pharo) does not compute a metrics and when we request it in moose we check and often we return a not so good -1.
I'm trying to brainstorm on a solution
- first may be the simplest way is to not invoke a metrics when it is not computed. But it means that we should know it and that we should have a registration mechanism. After all this is probably the best solution.
- Second we were thinking to use exception but when we have multiple entities missing one metrics.... I have serious doubts.
- Second I was thinking about having the following behavior
testCollect
| uarray collected | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue discarding). collected := uarray collect: [ :each | each ]. self assert: collected size equals: 2.
testDo
| res uarray | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue discarding). uarray add: 40. res := 0. uarray do: [ :each | res := res + each ]. self assert: res equals: 70.
testCollectDefaulting
| uarray collected | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue default: 33). collected := uarray collect: [ :each | each ]. self assert: collected size equals: 3. self assert: collected third equals: 33
I basically started to implement
do: aBlock "Refer to the comment in Collection|do:." 1 to: self size do: [:index | (self at: index) toDo: aBlock on: self]
collect: aBlock "Evaluate aBlock with each of the receiver's elements as the argument. Collect the resulting values into a collection like the receiver. Answer the new collection."
| newCollection | newCollection := self species new. self do: [ :each | each toCollect: aBlock on: newCollection ]. ^ newCollection
and
DiscardingValue >> toCollect: aBlock on: aCollection "discard computation" ^ self
Object >> toCollect: aBlock on: aCollection
^ aCollection add: (aBlock value: self)
So I imagine that you see the design and I wanted to get your point of view.
So basically you are trying to deal with missing values in collections.
People working with R or Python data analytics framework made some ways to work with specific data structures called dataframes where you can have some missing values.
For example you may have a look here: http://pandas.pydata.org/pandas-docs/stable/missing_data.html
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 4:15 AM, stepharong stepharong@free.fr wrote:
Hi dear great OO designers
Here is a little challenges for your brainy souls :)
In Moose when we compute metrics it may happen than a tool (often external to pharo) does not compute a metrics and when we request it in moose we check and often we return a not so good -1.
I'm trying to brainstorm on a solution
- first may be the simplest way is to not invoke a metrics when it is not
computed. But it means that we should know it and that we should have a registration mechanism. After all this is probably the best solution.
- Second we were thinking to use exception but when we have multiple
entities missing one metrics.... I have serious doubts.
- Second I was thinking about having the following behavior
testCollect
| uarray collected | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue discarding). collected := uarray collect: [ :each | each ]. self assert: collected size equals: 2.testDo
| res uarray | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue discarding). uarray add: 40. res := 0. uarray do: [ :each | res := res + each ]. self assert: res equals: 70.testCollectDefaulting
| uarray collected | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue default: 33). collected := uarray collect: [ :each | each ]. self assert: collected size equals: 3. self assert: collected third equals: 33I basically started to implement
do: aBlock "Refer to the comment in Collection|do:." 1 to: self size do: [:index | (self at: index) toDo: aBlock on: self]
collect: aBlock "Evaluate aBlock with each of the receiver's elements as the argument. Collect the resulting values into a collection like the receiver. Answer the new collection."
| newCollection | newCollection := self species new. self do: [ :each | each toCollect: aBlock on: newCollection ]. ^ newCollectionand
DiscardingValue >> toCollect: aBlock on: aCollection "discard computation" ^ self
Object >> toCollect: aBlock on: aCollection
^ aCollection add: (aBlock value: self)So I imagine that you see the design and I wanted to get your point of view.
-- Using Opera a kind of bad mail client but far better than thunderbird _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@list.inf.unibe.ch https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev
Hi,
MissingValue (or NoValue) is definitely the way to go. The UniformOrderedCollection is an interesting idea, too. We had a NoValue like solution a long time ago but we discarded because we missed the idea around collections. It would be really cool to have this working.
Cheers, Doru
On Dec 20, 2016, at 10:15 PM, stepharong stepharong@free.fr wrote:
Hi dear great OO designers
Here is a little challenges for your brainy souls :)
In Moose when we compute metrics it may happen than a tool (often external to pharo) does not compute a metrics and when we request it in moose we check and often we return a not so good -1.
I'm trying to brainstorm on a solution
first may be the simplest way is to not invoke a metrics when it is not computed. But it means that we should know it and that we should have a registration mechanism. After all this is probably the best solution.
Second we were thinking to use exception but when we have multiple entities missing one metrics.... I have serious doubts.
Second I was thinking about having the following behavior
testCollect
| uarray collected | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue discarding). collected := uarray collect: [ :each | each ]. self assert: collected size equals: 2.
testDo
| res uarray | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue discarding). uarray add: 40. res := 0. uarray do: [ :each | res := res + each ]. self assert: res equals: 70.
testCollectDefaulting
| uarray collected | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue default: 33). collected := uarray collect: [ :each | each ]. self assert: collected size equals: 3. self assert: collected third equals: 33
I basically started to implement
do: aBlock "Refer to the comment in Collection|do:." 1 to: self size do: [:index | (self at: index) toDo: aBlock on: self]
collect: aBlock "Evaluate aBlock with each of the receiver's elements as the argument. Collect the resulting values into a collection like the receiver. Answer the new collection."
| newCollection | newCollection := self species new. self do: [ :each | each toCollect: aBlock on: newCollection ]. ^ newCollection
and
DiscardingValue >> toCollect: aBlock on: aCollection "discard computation" ^ self
Object >> toCollect: aBlock on: aCollection
^ aCollection add: (aBlock value: self)
So I imagine that you see the design and I wanted to get your point of view.
-- Using Opera a kind of bad mail client but far better than thunderbird _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@list.inf.unibe.ch https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"One cannot do more than one can do."
On Wed, 21 Dec 2016 08:07:39 +0100, Tudor Girba tudor@tudorgirba.com wrote:
Hi,
MissingValue (or NoValue) is definitely the way to go. The UniformOrderedCollection is an interesting idea, too. We had a NoValue like solution a long time ago but we discarded because we missed the idea around collections. It would be really cool to have this working.
I can continue to see the amount of protocol that should be implemented.
Now I'm thinking that for moose I would like MetricComputer (an object computing a metric) and that tools list explicitly the metrics they need. The goal is to make metrics first class entity (but not at the model level rto avoid to have object just wrapping a number).
stef
Cheers, Doru
On Dec 20, 2016, at 10:15 PM, stepharong stepharong@free.fr wrote:
Hi dear great OO designers
Here is a little challenges for your brainy souls :)
In Moose when we compute metrics it may happen than a tool (often external to pharo) does not compute a metrics and when we request it in moose we check and often we return a not so good -1.
I'm trying to brainstorm on a solution
- first may be the simplest way is to not invoke a metrics when it is
not computed. But it means that we should know it and that we should have a registration mechanism. After all this is probably the best solution.
- Second we were thinking to use exception but when we have multiple
entities missing one metrics.... I have serious doubts.
- Second I was thinking about having the following behavior
testCollect
| uarray collected | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue discarding). collected := uarray collect: [ :each | each ]. self assert: collected size equals: 2.
testDo
| res uarray | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue discarding). uarray add: 40. res := 0. uarray do: [ :each | res := res + each ]. self assert: res equals: 70.
testCollectDefaulting
| uarray collected | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue default: 33). collected := uarray collect: [ :each | each ]. self assert: collected size equals: 3. self assert: collected third equals: 33
I basically started to implement
do: aBlock "Refer to the comment in Collection|do:." 1 to: self size do: [:index | (self at: index) toDo: aBlock on: self]
collect: aBlock "Evaluate aBlock with each of the receiver's elements as the argument. Collect the resulting values into a collection like the receiver. Answer the new collection."
| newCollection | newCollection := self species new. self do: [ :each | each toCollect: aBlock on: newCollection ]. ^ newCollection
and
DiscardingValue >> toCollect: aBlock on: aCollection "discard computation" ^ self
Object >> toCollect: aBlock on: aCollection
^ aCollection add: (aBlock value: self)
So I imagine that you see the design and I wanted to get your point of view.
-- Using Opera a kind of bad mail client but far better than thunderbird _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@list.inf.unibe.ch https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"One cannot do more than one can do."
Hi Stef,
You are raising an interesting point to discuss. This MissingValue is indeed better than having -1 Something to keep in mind: it may be that one would like to focus on the missing value and not really the value.
Consider:
testCollect
| uarray collected | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue discarding). collected := uarray collect: [ :each | each ]. self assert: collected size equals: 2.
It could well be that I would like to be able to query over the MissingValue. Can something like possible: uarray collect: #isMissing ?
Cheers, Alexandre
On Dec 20, 2016, at 10:15 PM, stepharong stepharong@free.fr wrote:
Hi dear great OO designers
Here is a little challenges for your brainy souls :)
In Moose when we compute metrics it may happen than a tool (often external to pharo) does not compute a metrics and when we request it in moose we check and often we return a not so good -1.
I'm trying to brainstorm on a solution
first may be the simplest way is to not invoke a metrics when it is not computed. But it means that we should know it and that we should have a registration mechanism. After all this is probably the best solution.
Second we were thinking to use exception but when we have multiple entities missing one metrics.... I have serious doubts.
Second I was thinking about having the following behavior
testCollect
| uarray collected | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue discarding). collected := uarray collect: [ :each | each ]. self assert: collected size equals: 2.
testDo
| res uarray | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue discarding). uarray add: 40. res := 0. uarray do: [ :each | res := res + each ]. self assert: res equals: 70.
testCollectDefaulting
| uarray collected | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue default: 33). collected := uarray collect: [ :each | each ]. self assert: collected size equals: 3. self assert: collected third equals: 33
I basically started to implement
do: aBlock "Refer to the comment in Collection|do:." 1 to: self size do: [:index | (self at: index) toDo: aBlock on: self]
collect: aBlock "Evaluate aBlock with each of the receiver's elements as the argument. Collect the resulting values into a collection like the receiver. Answer the new collection."
| newCollection | newCollection := self species new. self do: [ :each | each toCollect: aBlock on: newCollection ]. ^ newCollection
and
DiscardingValue >> toCollect: aBlock on: aCollection "discard computation" ^ self
Object >> toCollect: aBlock on: aCollection
^ aCollection add: (aBlock value: self)
So I imagine that you see the design and I wanted to get your point of view.
-- Using Opera a kind of bad mail client but far better than thunderbird _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@list.inf.unibe.ch https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev
Hi Alex,
Following the design proposed by Stef, in your case you would use a different collection.
Cheers, Doru
On Dec 21, 2016, at 8:13 AM, Alexandre Bergel alexandre.bergel@me.com wrote:
Hi Stef,
You are raising an interesting point to discuss. This MissingValue is indeed better than having -1 Something to keep in mind: it may be that one would like to focus on the missing value and not really the value.
Consider:
testCollect
| uarray collected | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue discarding). collected := uarray collect: [ :each | each ]. self assert: collected size equals: 2.
It could well be that I would like to be able to query over the MissingValue. Can something like possible: uarray collect: #isMissing ?
Cheers, Alexandre
On Dec 20, 2016, at 10:15 PM, stepharong stepharong@free.fr wrote:
Hi dear great OO designers
Here is a little challenges for your brainy souls :)
In Moose when we compute metrics it may happen than a tool (often external to pharo) does not compute a metrics and when we request it in moose we check and often we return a not so good -1.
I'm trying to brainstorm on a solution
first may be the simplest way is to not invoke a metrics when it is not computed. But it means that we should know it and that we should have a registration mechanism. After all this is probably the best solution.
Second we were thinking to use exception but when we have multiple entities missing one metrics.... I have serious doubts.
Second I was thinking about having the following behavior
testCollect
| uarray collected | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue discarding). collected := uarray collect: [ :each | each ]. self assert: collected size equals: 2.
testDo
| res uarray | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue discarding). uarray add: 40. res := 0. uarray do: [ :each | res := res + each ]. self assert: res equals: 70.
testCollectDefaulting
| uarray collected | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue default: 33). collected := uarray collect: [ :each | each ]. self assert: collected size equals: 3. self assert: collected third equals: 33
I basically started to implement
do: aBlock "Refer to the comment in Collection|do:." 1 to: self size do: [:index | (self at: index) toDo: aBlock on: self]
collect: aBlock "Evaluate aBlock with each of the receiver's elements as the argument. Collect the resulting values into a collection like the receiver. Answer the new collection."
| newCollection | newCollection := self species new. self do: [ :each | each toCollect: aBlock on: newCollection ]. ^ newCollection
and
DiscardingValue >> toCollect: aBlock on: aCollection "discard computation" ^ self
Object >> toCollect: aBlock on: aCollection
^ aCollection add: (aBlock value: self)
So I imagine that you see the design and I wanted to get your point of view.
-- Using Opera a kind of bad mail client but far better than thunderbird _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@list.inf.unibe.ch https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev
-- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@list.inf.unibe.ch https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"If you interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair, you will end up with a messy haircut."
Hi,
I forgot to mention that another option I played with was to always use a metric object, and never numbers. So, numberOfLinesOfCode would return a MetricValue. I think the same idea is present in acqoncagua.
Cheers, Doru
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"Every thing has its own flow"
On 21 Dec 2016, at 08:21, Tudor Girba tudor@tudorgirba.com wrote:
Hi Alex,
Following the design proposed by Stef, in your case you would use a different collection.
Cheers, Doru
On Dec 21, 2016, at 8:13 AM, Alexandre Bergel alexandre.bergel@me.com wrote:
Hi Stef,
You are raising an interesting point to discuss. This MissingValue is indeed better than having -1 Something to keep in mind: it may be that one would like to focus on the missing value and not really the value.
Consider:
testCollect
| uarray collected | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue discarding). collected := uarray collect: [ :each | each ]. self assert: collected size equals: 2.
It could well be that I would like to be able to query over the MissingValue. Can something like possible: uarray collect: #isMissing ?
Cheers, Alexandre
On Dec 20, 2016, at 10:15 PM, stepharong stepharong@free.fr wrote:
Hi dear great OO designers
Here is a little challenges for your brainy souls :)
In Moose when we compute metrics it may happen than a tool (often external to pharo) does not compute a metrics and when we request it in moose we check and often we return a not so good -1.
I'm trying to brainstorm on a solution
first may be the simplest way is to not invoke a metrics when it is not computed. But it means that we should know it and that we should have a registration mechanism. After all this is probably the best solution.
Second we were thinking to use exception but when we have multiple entities missing one metrics.... I have serious doubts.
Second I was thinking about having the following behavior
testCollect
| uarray collected | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue discarding). collected := uarray collect: [ :each | each ]. self assert: collected size equals: 2.
testDo
| res uarray | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue discarding). uarray add: 40. res := 0. uarray do: [ :each | res := res + each ]. self assert: res equals: 70.
testCollectDefaulting
| uarray collected | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue default: 33). collected := uarray collect: [ :each | each ]. self assert: collected size equals: 3. self assert: collected third equals: 33
I basically started to implement
do: aBlock "Refer to the comment in Collection|do:." 1 to: self size do: [:index | (self at: index) toDo: aBlock on: self]
collect: aBlock "Evaluate aBlock with each of the receiver's elements as the argument. Collect the resulting values into a collection like the receiver. Answer the new collection."
| newCollection | newCollection := self species new. self do: [ :each | each toCollect: aBlock on: newCollection ]. ^ newCollection
and
DiscardingValue >> toCollect: aBlock on: aCollection "discard computation" ^ self
Object >> toCollect: aBlock on: aCollection
^ aCollection add: (aBlock value: self)
So I imagine that you see the design and I wanted to get your point of view.
-- Using Opera a kind of bad mail client but far better than thunderbird _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@list.inf.unibe.ch https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev
-- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@list.inf.unibe.ch https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"If you interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair, you will end up with a messy haircut."
On a more general note, what do you think of how it's done in other languages (Haskell's "Maybe") ?
We already have it in the form of nil / all other objects and #ifNil:, but that would make it explicit with a couple of classes:
Maybe subclass: ActualValue Maybe subclass: MissingValue and a #default: or #orElse: accessor to get the wrapped value, defaulting to something else, or some block-evaluating message similar to #ifNotNilDo:
On 21 December 2016 at 12:05, Tudor Girba tudor@tudorgirba.com wrote:
Hi,
I forgot to mention that another option I played with was to always use a metric object, and never numbers. So, numberOfLinesOfCode would return a MetricValue. I think the same idea is present in acqoncagua.
Cheers, Doru
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"Every thing has its own flow"
On 21 Dec 2016, at 08:21, Tudor Girba tudor@tudorgirba.com wrote:
Hi Alex,
Following the design proposed by Stef, in your case you would use a
different collection.
Cheers, Doru
On Dec 21, 2016, at 8:13 AM, Alexandre Bergel alexandre.bergel@me.com
wrote:
Hi Stef,
You are raising an interesting point to discuss. This MissingValue is
indeed better than having -1
Something to keep in mind: it may be that one would like to focus on
the missing value and not really the value.
Consider:
testCollect
| uarray collected | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue discarding). collected := uarray collect: [ :each | each ]. self assert: collected size equals: 2.
It could well be that I would like to be able to query over the
MissingValue.
Can something like possible: uarray collect: #isMissing ?
Cheers, Alexandre
On Dec 20, 2016, at 10:15 PM, stepharong stepharong@free.fr wrote:
Hi dear great OO designers
Here is a little challenges for your brainy souls :)
In Moose when we compute metrics it may happen than a tool (often
external to pharo) does not compute a metrics
and when we request it in moose we check and often we return a not so
good -1.
I'm trying to brainstorm on a solution
- first may be the simplest way is to not invoke a metrics when it is
not computed. But it means that we should know it and that we should have a registration mechanism. After all this is probably the best solution.
- Second we were thinking to use exception but when we have multiple
entities missing one metrics.... I have serious doubts.
- Second I was thinking about having the following behavior
testCollect
| uarray collected | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue discarding). collected := uarray collect: [ :each | each ]. self assert: collected size equals: 2.
testDo
| res uarray | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue discarding). uarray add: 40. res := 0. uarray do: [ :each | res := res + each ]. self assert: res equals: 70.
testCollectDefaulting
| uarray collected | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue default: 33). collected := uarray collect: [ :each | each ]. self assert: collected size equals: 3. self assert: collected third equals: 33
I basically started to implement
do: aBlock "Refer to the comment in Collection|do:." 1 to: self size do: [:index | (self at: index) toDo: aBlock on: self]
collect: aBlock "Evaluate aBlock with each of the receiver's elements as the
argument.
Collect the resulting values into a collection like the receiver.
Answer
the new collection."
| newCollection | newCollection := self species new. self do: [ :each | each toCollect: aBlock on: newCollection ]. ^ newCollection
and
DiscardingValue >> toCollect: aBlock on: aCollection "discard computation" ^ self
Object >> toCollect: aBlock on: aCollection
^ aCollection add: (aBlock value: self)
So I imagine that you see the design and I wanted to get your point of
view.
-- Using Opera a kind of bad mail client but far better than thunderbird _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@list.inf.unibe.ch https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev
-- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@list.inf.unibe.ch https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"If you interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair, you will end up with a messy haircut."
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@list.inf.unibe.ch https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev
Hi damien
why not :) Now I do not know if may be is helping me in my scenario.
On Wed, 21 Dec 2016 13:54:12 +0100, Damien Pollet damien.pollet@gmail.com wrote:
On a more general note, what do you think of how it's done in other languages (Haskell's "Maybe") ?
We already have it in the form of nil / all other objects and #ifNil:, but that would make it explicit with a couple of classes: Maybe subclass: ActualValue Maybe subclass: MissingValue and a #default: or #orElse: accessor to get the wrapped value, defaulting to something else, or some block-evaluating message similar to #ifNotNilDo:
On 21 December 2016 at 12:05, Tudor Girba tudor@tudorgirba.com wrote:
Hi,
I forgot to mention that another option I played with was to always use a metric object, and never numbers. So, numberOfLinesOfCode would return a MetricValue. I think the same idea is >>present in acqoncagua.
Cheers, Doru
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"Every thing has its own flow"
On 21 Dec 2016, at 08:21, Tudor Girba tudor@tudorgirba.com wrote:
Hi Alex,
Following the design proposed by Stef, in your case you would use a different collection.
Cheers, Doru
On Dec 21, 2016, at 8:13 AM, Alexandre Bergel alexandre.bergel@me.com wrote:
Hi Stef,
You are raising an interesting point to discuss. This MissingValue is indeed better than having -1 Something to keep in mind: it may be that one would like to focus on the missing value and not really the value.
Consider:
testCollect
| uarray collected | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue discarding). collected := uarray collect: [ :each | each ]. self assert: collected size equals: 2.
It could well be that I would like to be able to query over the MissingValue. Can something like possible: uarray collect: #isMissing ?
Cheers, Alexandre
On Dec 20, 2016, at 10:15 PM, stepharong stepharong@free.fr wrote:
Hi dear great OO designers
Here is a little challenges for your brainy souls :)
In Moose when we compute metrics it may happen than a tool (often external to pharo) does not compute a metrics and when we request it in moose we check and often we return a not so good -1.
I'm trying to brainstorm on a solution
- first may be the simplest way is to not invoke a metrics when it
is not computed. But it means that we should know it and that we should have a registration mechanism. After all this is >>probably the best solution.
- Second we were thinking to use exception but when we have multiple
entities missing one metrics.... I have serious doubts.
- Second I was thinking about having the following behavior
testCollect
| uarray collected | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue discarding). collected := uarray collect: [ :each | each ]. self assert: collected size equals: 2.
testDo
| res uarray | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue discarding). uarray add: 40. res := 0. uarray do: [ :each | res := res + each ]. self assert: res equals: 70.
testCollectDefaulting
| uarray collected | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue default: 33). collected := uarray collect: [ :each | each ]. self assert: collected size equals: 3. self assert: collected third equals: 33
I basically started to implement
do: aBlock "Refer to the comment in Collection|do:." 1 to: self size do: [:index | (self at: index) toDo: aBlock on: self]
collect: aBlock "Evaluate aBlock with each of the receiver's elements as the argument. Collect the resulting values into a collection like the receiver. Answer the new collection."
| newCollection | newCollection := self species new. self do: [ :each | each toCollect: aBlock on: newCollection ]. ^ newCollection
and
DiscardingValue >> toCollect: aBlock on: aCollection "discard computation" ^ self
Object >> toCollect: aBlock on: aCollection
^ aCollection add: (aBlock value: self)
So I imagine that you see the design and I wanted to get your point of view.
-- Using Opera a kind of bad mail client but far better than thunderbird _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@list.inf.unibe.ch https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev
-- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@list.inf.unibe.ch https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"If you interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair, you will end up with a messy haircut."
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@list.inf.unibe.ch https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev
--Damien Pollet type less, do more [ | ] http://people.untyped.org/damien.pollet
On Wed, 21 Dec 2016 12:05:32 +0100, Tudor Girba tudor@tudorgirba.com wrote:
Hi,
I forgot to mention that another option I played with was to always use a metric object, and never numbers. So, numberOfLinesOfCode would return a MetricValue. I think the same idea is present in acqoncagua.
Yes in fact may be we should hold the value as raw data and create on demande the metricValue. to avoid to have millions on them. Or a kind of flightweight
Cheers, Doru
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"Every thing has its own flow"
On 21 Dec 2016, at 08:21, Tudor Girba tudor@tudorgirba.com wrote:
Hi Alex,
Following the design proposed by Stef, in your case you would use a different collection.
Cheers, Doru
On Dec 21, 2016, at 8:13 AM, Alexandre Bergel alexandre.bergel@me.com wrote:
Hi Stef,
You are raising an interesting point to discuss. This MissingValue is indeed better than having -1 Something to keep in mind: it may be that one would like to focus on the missing value and not really the value.
Consider:
testCollect
| uarray collected | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue discarding). collected := uarray collect: [ :each | each ]. self assert: collected size equals: 2.
It could well be that I would like to be able to query over the MissingValue. Can something like possible: uarray collect: #isMissing ?
Cheers, Alexandre
On Dec 20, 2016, at 10:15 PM, stepharong stepharong@free.fr wrote:
Hi dear great OO designers
Here is a little challenges for your brainy souls :)
In Moose when we compute metrics it may happen than a tool (often external to pharo) does not compute a metrics and when we request it in moose we check and often we return a not so good -1.
I'm trying to brainstorm on a solution
- first may be the simplest way is to not invoke a metrics when it is
not computed. But it means that we should know it and that we should have a registration mechanism. After all this is probably the best solution.
- Second we were thinking to use exception but when we have multiple
entities missing one metrics.... I have serious doubts.
- Second I was thinking about having the following behavior
testCollect
| uarray collected | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue discarding). collected := uarray collect: [ :each | each ]. self assert: collected size equals: 2.
testDo
| res uarray | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue discarding). uarray add: 40. res := 0. uarray do: [ :each | res := res + each ]. self assert: res equals: 70.
testCollectDefaulting
| uarray collected | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue default: 33). collected := uarray collect: [ :each | each ]. self assert: collected size equals: 3. self assert: collected third equals: 33
I basically started to implement
do: aBlock "Refer to the comment in Collection|do:." 1 to: self size do: [:index | (self at: index) toDo: aBlock on: self]
collect: aBlock "Evaluate aBlock with each of the receiver's elements as the argument. Collect the resulting values into a collection like the receiver. Answer the new collection."
| newCollection | newCollection := self species new. self do: [ :each | each toCollect: aBlock on: newCollection ]. ^ newCollection
and
DiscardingValue >> toCollect: aBlock on: aCollection "discard computation" ^ self
Object >> toCollect: aBlock on: aCollection
^ aCollection add: (aBlock value: self)
So I imagine that you see the design and I wanted to get your point of view.
-- Using Opera a kind of bad mail client but far better than thunderbird _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@list.inf.unibe.ch https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev
-- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@list.inf.unibe.ch https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"If you interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair, you will end up with a messy haircut."
Hi Alex,
Following the design proposed by Stef, in your case you would use a different collection.
Doru I have multiple missingValue so that they embed their own strategy. Now I do not know for the scenario of alex.
Cheers, Doru
On Dec 21, 2016, at 8:13 AM, Alexandre Bergel alexandre.bergel@me.com wrote:
Hi Stef,
You are raising an interesting point to discuss. This MissingValue is indeed better than having -1 Something to keep in mind: it may be that one would like to focus on the missing value and not really the value.
Consider:
testCollect
| uarray collected | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue discarding). collected := uarray collect: [ :each | each ]. self assert: collected size equals: 2.
It could well be that I would like to be able to query over the MissingValue. Can something like possible: uarray collect: #isMissing ?
Cheers, Alexandre
On Dec 20, 2016, at 10:15 PM, stepharong stepharong@free.fr wrote:
Hi dear great OO designers
Here is a little challenges for your brainy souls :)
In Moose when we compute metrics it may happen than a tool (often external to pharo) does not compute a metrics and when we request it in moose we check and often we return a not so good -1.
I'm trying to brainstorm on a solution
- first may be the simplest way is to not invoke a metrics when it is
not computed. But it means that we should know it and that we should have a registration mechanism. After all this is probably the best solution.
- Second we were thinking to use exception but when we have multiple
entities missing one metrics.... I have serious doubts.
- Second I was thinking about having the following behavior
testCollect
| uarray collected | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue discarding). collected := uarray collect: [ :each | each ]. self assert: collected size equals: 2.
testDo
| res uarray | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue discarding). uarray add: 40. res := 0. uarray do: [ :each | res := res + each ]. self assert: res equals: 70.
testCollectDefaulting
| uarray collected | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue default: 33). collected := uarray collect: [ :each | each ]. self assert: collected size equals: 3. self assert: collected third equals: 33
I basically started to implement
do: aBlock "Refer to the comment in Collection|do:." 1 to: self size do: [:index | (self at: index) toDo: aBlock on: self]
collect: aBlock "Evaluate aBlock with each of the receiver's elements as the argument. Collect the resulting values into a collection like the receiver. Answer the new collection."
| newCollection | newCollection := self species new. self do: [ :each | each toCollect: aBlock on: newCollection ]. ^ newCollection
and
DiscardingValue >> toCollect: aBlock on: aCollection "discard computation" ^ self
Object >> toCollect: aBlock on: aCollection
^ aCollection add: (aBlock value: self)
So I imagine that you see the design and I wanted to get your point of view.
-- Using Opera a kind of bad mail client but far better than thunderbird _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@list.inf.unibe.ch https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev
-- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@list.inf.unibe.ch https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"If you interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair, you will end up with a messy haircut."
Doru I have multiple missingValue so that they embed their own strategy. Now I do not know for the scenario of alex.
For example, obtaining the classes for which metrics cannot be computed (e.g., source code is missing).
Alexandre
Cheers, Doru
On Dec 21, 2016, at 8:13 AM, Alexandre Bergel alexandre.bergel@me.com wrote:
Hi Stef,
You are raising an interesting point to discuss. This MissingValue is indeed better than having -1 Something to keep in mind: it may be that one would like to focus on the missing value and not really the value.
Consider:
testCollect
| uarray collected | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue discarding). collected := uarray collect: [ :each | each ]. self assert: collected size equals: 2.
It could well be that I would like to be able to query over the MissingValue. Can something like possible: uarray collect: #isMissing ?
Cheers, Alexandre
On Dec 20, 2016, at 10:15 PM, stepharong stepharong@free.fr wrote:
Hi dear great OO designers
Here is a little challenges for your brainy souls :)
In Moose when we compute metrics it may happen than a tool (often external to pharo) does not compute a metrics and when we request it in moose we check and often we return a not so good -1.
I'm trying to brainstorm on a solution
first may be the simplest way is to not invoke a metrics when it is not computed. But it means that we should know it and that we should have a registration mechanism. After all this is probably the best solution.
Second we were thinking to use exception but when we have multiple entities missing one metrics.... I have serious doubts.
Second I was thinking about having the following behavior
testCollect
| uarray collected | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue discarding). collected := uarray collect: [ :each | each ]. self assert: collected size equals: 2.
testDo
| res uarray | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue discarding). uarray add: 40. res := 0. uarray do: [ :each | res := res + each ]. self assert: res equals: 70.
testCollectDefaulting
| uarray collected | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue default: 33). collected := uarray collect: [ :each | each ]. self assert: collected size equals: 3. self assert: collected third equals: 33
I basically started to implement
do: aBlock "Refer to the comment in Collection|do:." 1 to: self size do: [:index | (self at: index) toDo: aBlock on: self]
collect: aBlock "Evaluate aBlock with each of the receiver's elements as the argument. Collect the resulting values into a collection like the receiver. Answer the new collection."
| newCollection | newCollection := self species new. self do: [ :each | each toCollect: aBlock on: newCollection ]. ^ newCollection
and
DiscardingValue >> toCollect: aBlock on: aCollection "discard computation" ^ self
Object >> toCollect: aBlock on: aCollection
^ aCollection add: (aBlock value: self)
So I imagine that you see the design and I wanted to get your point of view.
-- Using Opera a kind of bad mail client but far better than thunderbird _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@list.inf.unibe.ch https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev
-- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@list.inf.unibe.ch https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"If you interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair, you will end up with a messy haircut."
-- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@list.inf.unibe.ch https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev
Hi,
On Dec 21, 2016, at 3:05 PM, stepharong stepharong@free.fr wrote:
Hi Alex,
Following the design proposed by Stef, in your case you would use a different collection.
Doru I have multiple missingValue so that they embed their own strategy. Now I do not know for the scenario of alex.
Yes, yes. And that is great.
It seemed to me that Alex wanted to find from the collection the elements that have a MissingValue, and for that he wants to use collect:. But, your collection collect: ignores the MissingValue. That is why I thought that he can serve his case with another collection type.
Cheers, Doru
Cheers, Doru
On Dec 21, 2016, at 8:13 AM, Alexandre Bergel alexandre.bergel@me.com wrote:
Hi Stef,
You are raising an interesting point to discuss. This MissingValue is indeed better than having -1 Something to keep in mind: it may be that one would like to focus on the missing value and not really the value.
Consider:
testCollect
| uarray collected | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue discarding). collected := uarray collect: [ :each | each ]. self assert: collected size equals: 2.
It could well be that I would like to be able to query over the MissingValue. Can something like possible: uarray collect: #isMissing ?
Cheers, Alexandre
On Dec 20, 2016, at 10:15 PM, stepharong stepharong@free.fr wrote:
Hi dear great OO designers
Here is a little challenges for your brainy souls :)
In Moose when we compute metrics it may happen than a tool (often external to pharo) does not compute a metrics and when we request it in moose we check and often we return a not so good -1.
I'm trying to brainstorm on a solution
first may be the simplest way is to not invoke a metrics when it is not computed. But it means that we should know it and that we should have a registration mechanism. After all this is probably the best solution.
Second we were thinking to use exception but when we have multiple entities missing one metrics.... I have serious doubts.
Second I was thinking about having the following behavior
testCollect
| uarray collected | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue discarding). collected := uarray collect: [ :each | each ]. self assert: collected size equals: 2.
testDo
| res uarray | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue discarding). uarray add: 40. res := 0. uarray do: [ :each | res := res + each ]. self assert: res equals: 70.
testCollectDefaulting
| uarray collected | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue default: 33). collected := uarray collect: [ :each | each ]. self assert: collected size equals: 3. self assert: collected third equals: 33
I basically started to implement
do: aBlock "Refer to the comment in Collection|do:." 1 to: self size do: [:index | (self at: index) toDo: aBlock on: self]
collect: aBlock "Evaluate aBlock with each of the receiver's elements as the argument. Collect the resulting values into a collection like the receiver. Answer the new collection."
| newCollection | newCollection := self species new. self do: [ :each | each toCollect: aBlock on: newCollection ]. ^ newCollection
and
DiscardingValue >> toCollect: aBlock on: aCollection "discard computation" ^ self
Object >> toCollect: aBlock on: aCollection
^ aCollection add: (aBlock value: self)
So I imagine that you see the design and I wanted to get your point of view.
-- Using Opera a kind of bad mail client but far better than thunderbird _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@list.inf.unibe.ch https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev
-- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@list.inf.unibe.ch https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"If you interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair, you will end up with a messy haircut."
-- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
“The smaller and more pervasive the hardware becomes, the more physical the software gets."
Yes I see. I will keep thinking about it.
On Wed, 21 Dec 2016 20:58:26 +0100, Tudor Girba tudor@tudorgirba.com wrote:
Hi,
On Dec 21, 2016, at 3:05 PM, stepharong stepharong@free.fr wrote:
Hi Alex,
Following the design proposed by Stef, in your case you would use a different collection.
Doru I have multiple missingValue so that they embed their own strategy. Now I do not know for the scenario of alex.
Yes, yes. And that is great.
It seemed to me that Alex wanted to find from the collection the elements that have a MissingValue, and for that he wants to use collect:. But, your collection collect: ignores the MissingValue. That is why I thought that he can serve his case with another collection type.
Cheers, Doru
Cheers, Doru
On Dec 21, 2016, at 8:13 AM, Alexandre Bergel alexandre.bergel@me.com wrote:
Hi Stef,
You are raising an interesting point to discuss. This MissingValue is indeed better than having -1 Something to keep in mind: it may be that one would like to focus on the missing value and not really the value.
Consider:
testCollect
| uarray collected | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue discarding). collected := uarray collect: [ :each | each ]. self assert: collected size equals: 2.
It could well be that I would like to be able to query over the MissingValue. Can something like possible: uarray collect: #isMissing ?
Cheers, Alexandre
On Dec 20, 2016, at 10:15 PM, stepharong stepharong@free.fr wrote:
Hi dear great OO designers
Here is a little challenges for your brainy souls :)
In Moose when we compute metrics it may happen than a tool (often external to pharo) does not compute a metrics and when we request it in moose we check and often we return a not so good -1.
I'm trying to brainstorm on a solution
- first may be the simplest way is to not invoke a metrics when it
is not computed. But it means that we should know it and that we should have a registration mechanism. After all this is probably the best solution.
- Second we were thinking to use exception but when we have multiple
entities missing one metrics.... I have serious doubts.
- Second I was thinking about having the following behavior
testCollect
| uarray collected | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue discarding). collected := uarray collect: [ :each | each ]. self assert: collected size equals: 2.
testDo
| res uarray | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue discarding). uarray add: 40. res := 0. uarray do: [ :each | res := res + each ]. self assert: res equals: 70.
testCollectDefaulting
| uarray collected | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue default: 33). collected := uarray collect: [ :each | each ]. self assert: collected size equals: 3. self assert: collected third equals: 33
I basically started to implement
do: aBlock "Refer to the comment in Collection|do:." 1 to: self size do: [:index | (self at: index) toDo: aBlock on: self]
collect: aBlock "Evaluate aBlock with each of the receiver's elements as the argument. Collect the resulting values into a collection like the receiver. Answer the new collection."
| newCollection | newCollection := self species new. self do: [ :each | each toCollect: aBlock on: newCollection ]. ^ newCollection
and
DiscardingValue >> toCollect: aBlock on: aCollection "discard computation" ^ self
Object >> toCollect: aBlock on: aCollection
^ aCollection add: (aBlock value: self)
So I imagine that you see the design and I wanted to get your point of view.
-- Using Opera a kind of bad mail client but far better than thunderbird _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@list.inf.unibe.ch https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev
-- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@list.inf.unibe.ch https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"If you interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair, you will end up with a messy haircut."
-- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
“The smaller and more pervasive the hardware becomes, the more physical the software gets."
Something interesting about missing values and data-structure to represent them like shadow matrix:
https://github.com/njtierney/naniar?utm_content=buffer26e7b
Some month ago, I build a Roassal viz in order to see missing values in CSV file: https://twitter.com/SergeStinckwich/status/705839378917167104
On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 9:34 AM, stepharong stepharong@free.fr wrote:
Yes I see. I will keep thinking about it.
On Wed, 21 Dec 2016 20:58:26 +0100, Tudor Girba tudor@tudorgirba.com wrote:
Hi,
On Dec 21, 2016, at 3:05 PM, stepharong stepharong@free.fr wrote:
Hi Alex,
Following the design proposed by Stef, in your case you would use a different collection.
Doru I have multiple missingValue so that they embed their own strategy. Now I do not know for the scenario of alex.
Yes, yes. And that is great.
It seemed to me that Alex wanted to find from the collection the elements that have a MissingValue, and for that he wants to use collect:. But, your collection collect: ignores the MissingValue. That is why I thought that he can serve his case with another collection type.
Cheers, Doru
Cheers, Doru
On Dec 21, 2016, at 8:13 AM, Alexandre Bergel alexandre.bergel@me.com wrote:
Hi Stef,
You are raising an interesting point to discuss. This MissingValue is indeed better than having -1 Something to keep in mind: it may be that one would like to focus on the missing value and not really the value.
Consider:
testCollect
| uarray collected | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue discarding). collected := uarray collect: [ :each | each ]. self assert: collected size equals: 2.It could well be that I would like to be able to query over the MissingValue. Can something like possible: uarray collect: #isMissing ?
Cheers, Alexandre
On Dec 20, 2016, at 10:15 PM, stepharong stepharong@free.fr wrote:
Hi dear great OO designers
Here is a little challenges for your brainy souls :)
In Moose when we compute metrics it may happen than a tool (often external to pharo) does not compute a metrics and when we request it in moose we check and often we return a not so good -1.
I'm trying to brainstorm on a solution
- first may be the simplest way is to not invoke a metrics when it is
not computed. But it means that we should know it and that we should have a registration mechanism. After all this is probably the best solution.
- Second we were thinking to use exception but when we have multiple
entities missing one metrics.... I have serious doubts.
- Second I was thinking about having the following behavior
testCollect
| uarray collected | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue discarding). collected := uarray collect: [ :each | each ]. self assert: collected size equals: 2.testDo
| res uarray | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue discarding). uarray add: 40. res := 0. uarray do: [ :each | res := res + each ]. self assert: res equals: 70.testCollectDefaulting
| uarray collected | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue default: 33). collected := uarray collect: [ :each | each ]. self assert: collected size equals: 3. self assert: collected third equals: 33I basically started to implement
do: aBlock "Refer to the comment in Collection|do:." 1 to: self size do: [:index | (self at: index) toDo: aBlock on: self]
collect: aBlock "Evaluate aBlock with each of the receiver's elements as the argument. Collect the resulting values into a collection like the receiver. Answer the new collection."
| newCollection | newCollection := self species new. self do: [ :each | each toCollect: aBlock on: newCollection]. ^ newCollection
and
DiscardingValue >> toCollect: aBlock on: aCollection "discard computation" ^ self
Object >> toCollect: aBlock on: aCollection
^ aCollection add: (aBlock value: self)So I imagine that you see the design and I wanted to get your point of view.
-- Using Opera a kind of bad mail client but far better than thunderbird _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@list.inf.unibe.ch https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev
-- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@list.inf.unibe.ch https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"If you interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair, you will end up with a messy haircut."
-- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
“The smaller and more pervasive the hardware becomes, the more physical the software gets."
-- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@list.inf.unibe.ch https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev
On Wed, 21 Dec 2016 08:13:19 +0100, Alexandre Bergel alexandre.bergel@me.com wrote:
Hi Stef,
You are raising an interesting point to discuss. This MissingValue is indeed better than having -1 Something to keep in mind: it may be that one would like to focus on the missing value and not really the value.
can you give an example?
Consider:
testCollect
| uarray collected | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue discarding). collected := uarray collect: [ :each | each ]. self assert: collected size equals: 2.
It could well be that I would like to be able to query over the MissingValue. Can something like possible: uarray collect: #isMissing
I see what you mean. I will see what I can do.
Cheers, Alexandre
On Dec 20, 2016, at 10:15 PM, stepharong stepharong@free.fr wrote:
Hi dear great OO designers
Here is a little challenges for your brainy souls :)
In Moose when we compute metrics it may happen than a tool (often external to pharo) does not compute a metrics and when we request it in moose we check and often we return a not so good -1.
I'm trying to brainstorm on a solution
- first may be the simplest way is to not invoke a metrics when it is
not computed. But it means that we should know it and that we should have a registration mechanism. After all this is probably the best solution.
- Second we were thinking to use exception but when we have multiple
entities missing one metrics.... I have serious doubts.
- Second I was thinking about having the following behavior
testCollect
| uarray collected | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue discarding). collected := uarray collect: [ :each | each ]. self assert: collected size equals: 2.
testDo
| res uarray | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue discarding). uarray add: 40. res := 0. uarray do: [ :each | res := res + each ]. self assert: res equals: 70.
testCollectDefaulting
| uarray collected | uarray := UniformOrderedCollection new. uarray add: 10. uarray add: 20. uarray add: (MissingValue default: 33). collected := uarray collect: [ :each | each ]. self assert: collected size equals: 3. self assert: collected third equals: 33
I basically started to implement
do: aBlock "Refer to the comment in Collection|do:." 1 to: self size do: [:index | (self at: index) toDo: aBlock on: self]
collect: aBlock "Evaluate aBlock with each of the receiver's elements as the argument. Collect the resulting values into a collection like the receiver. Answer the new collection."
| newCollection | newCollection := self species new. self do: [ :each | each toCollect: aBlock on: newCollection ]. ^ newCollection
and
DiscardingValue >> toCollect: aBlock on: aCollection "discard computation" ^ self
Object >> toCollect: aBlock on: aCollection
^ aCollection add: (aBlock value: self)
So I imagine that you see the design and I wanted to get your point of view.
-- Using Opera a kind of bad mail client but far better than thunderbird _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@list.inf.unibe.ch https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev
-
Alexandre Bergel -
Damien Pollet -
Serge Stinckwich -
stepharong -
Tudor Girba