| Type | Wish | Status | waiting | Date | 19-Jan-2011 17:16 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Version | alpha 110 | Category | Unspecified | Submitted by | Ch.Ensel |
| Platform | All | Severity | minor | Priority | normal |
| Summary | /CASE-refinement is inapropriate name, would better be /STRICT |
|---|---|
| Description |
For SELECT, FIND, REPLACE and ALTER the /CASE refinement is inapropriate naming, since it doesn't only extend the functions behaviour to case-sensivity but makes the function do STRICT-EQUAL? comparisons instead of EQUAL? comparisons. The name for the refinement therefor would better be /STRICT. |
| Example code |
>> select/case [a 1 a: 2] quote a: >> select/strict [a 1 a: 2] quote a: >> find/case [a :a] quote :a >> find/strict [a :a] quote :a >> replace/case [a :a] quote :a quote a: >> replace/strict [a :a] quote :a quote a: >> alter/case [a] [:a] >> alter/strict [a] [:a] |
| Assigned to | n/a | Fixed in | - | Last Update | 31-Mar-2015 01:46 |
|---|
| Comments | |
|---|---|
|
(0003035)
maxim 19-Jan-2011 17:18 |
DEFINITELY!
/CASE makes no sense whatsoever. reading it in code, I couldn't understand what's going on. |
|
(0003036)
BrianH 19-Jan-2011 23:56 |
It's not strictly STRICT-EQUAL? compatible, so /strict would be confusing too. Binding is not considered:
>> select/case reduce [use [a] ['a] 1 'a 2] 'a == 1 >> strict-equal? use [a] ['a] 'a == false Nor should binding be considered, as it would be rare for the value being searched for have the same binding as the data that the /case or /strict functions would be applied to. Don't forget that the set functions (DIFFERENCE, UNIQUE, UNION, INTERSECT and EXCLUDE) would need the /strict refinement as well if we are doing this. And all functions with /case currently would need to keep the /case refinement for compatibility - /strict would need to be a new refinement - so we would have to consider what it means when the options would be combined or not. All in all, it might be a good idea to add a refinement to make this distinction, but it shouldn't be called /strict. |
|
(0003038)
BrianH 20-Jan-2011 02:06 |
This ticket could be rewritten slightly to be option 4 of the rewritten ticket #1830. Waiting until that ticket is resolved. |
|
(0004620)
abolka 31-Mar-2015 01:46 |
#1834 proposes getting rid of binding checks in strict comparisons. So if #1834 is implemented, /STRICT would become a slightly more appropriate name.
Even with #1834, strict comparison would still heed datatype differences, though -- so we still need an answer to how that would map to scenarios when a total order is required (such as in SORT). We currently seem to have _some_ answer for that in place already, so maybe we should just continue doing what we are doing already: >> sort [foo "foo" bar "bar"] == ["bar" "foo" bar foo] |
| Date | User | Field | Action | Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 31-Mar-2015 02:06 | abolka | Comment : 0004620 | Modified | - |
| 31-Mar-2015 01:52 | abolka | Comment : 0004620 | Modified | - |
| 31-Mar-2015 01:46 | abolka | Comment : 0004620 | Added | - |
| 20-Jan-2011 02:06 | BrianH | Comment : 0003038 | Added | - |
| 20-Jan-2011 02:05 | BrianH | Status | Modified | submitted => waiting |
| 20-Jan-2011 00:01 | BrianH | Comment : 0003036 | Modified | - |
| 19-Jan-2011 23:56 | BrianH | Comment : 0003036 | Added | - |
| 19-Jan-2011 23:47 | BrianH | Description | Modified | - |
| 19-Jan-2011 23:47 | BrianH | Code | Modified | - |
| 19-Jan-2011 23:47 | BrianH | Version | Modified | alpha 111 => alpha 110 |
| 19-Jan-2011 17:18 | maxim | Comment : 0003035 | Modified | - |
| 19-Jan-2011 17:18 | maxim | Comment : 0003035 | Added | - |
| 19-Jan-2011 17:16 | Ch.Ensel | Ticket | Added | - |