Re: Re: [groovy-dev] RE: Some enhanced methods for collection

FWIW Java does both as well.

Arrays.asList(array)

array = Collection.toArray()

On 31 Mar 2005, at 16:36, Aaron Alpar wrote:

> Hrumph...
>
> toXxxx is a Java convention...
> asXxxx is a Groovy/Smalltalk/Ruby convention.
>
> I say stick to the asXxxx because it's a Groovy extension.
>
> Leave the toXxxx stuff for the original Java methods, this is also 
> kinda
> nice because if Java *does* implement a toSet for list, then we don't
> get a name collision for the method, and have the _option_ of removing
> the duplicate method from Groovy.
>
> - Aaron
>
> On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 23:49, Dierk Koenig wrote:
>> toSet() reads nicer in expressions like
>>
>> println String.class.methods.name.toSet().sort()
>>
>> where 'as Set' reads nicer in declarations and single assignment like
>>
>> l = someotherlist as Set
>>
>> How about having both?
>>
>> cheers
>> Mittie
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: jastrachan@... [mailto:jastrachan@...]
>>> Sent: Donnerstag, 31. Marz 2005 9:27
>>> To: jsr@...
>>> Subject: Re: [groovy-jsr] Re: [groovy-dev] RE: Some enhanced methods 
>>> for
>>> collection
>>>
>>>
>>> FWIW there are a few methods around like toList() and toArray(), 
>>> maybe
>>> we need a toSet()?
>>>
>>> I do quite like
>>>
>>> list as Set
>>>
>>> too (allowing folks to specify the exact Set implementation if they
>>> wish)
>>>
>>>
>>> On 30 Mar 2005, at 22:10, John Rose wrote:
>>>> On Mar 30, 2005, at 11:47, Dierk Koenig wrote:
>>>>> For the use of imperative verbs: how would this relate to
>>>>> - compact
>>>>> - unique
>>>>> - sort (hehe)
>>>>> what would be the non-imperative versions that returns the copy?
>>>>
>>>> I'm not saying that all of these merit fresh-copy versions, but they
>>>> could be named:
>>>>
>>>> list.compacted()
>>>> list.withCompaction()
>>>> list.copyCompact()
>>>>
>>>> list.sort()
>>>> list.sorted()
>>>> list.copySort()
>>>> list as SortedSet  // this is nice and clear, but no duplicates 
>>>> allowed
>>>> list as SortedList  // not a real type, although Smalltalk has it
>>>>
>>>> After doing a bunch of these examples, the "copyFrob" convention may
>>>> start looking superior.
>>>>
>>>> I do not like the name list.unique(), because the word is an
>>>> adjective, which makes the grammar unclear.
>>>> I prefer Common Lisp's very explicit verb phrase:
>>>> list.removeDuplicates().
>>>>
>>>> -- John
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> James
>>> -------
>>> http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
>>>
>
>

James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/