Smalltalk iterators are different

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #128,869 by Arkadiy 12/4/03 10:50:10 AM Reply	Smalltalk iterators are different You pass a block of code to a collection's method, and this block is executed for every array element: myArray do: [ :element\| element modifyAsNeeded] A variation I used in my cheating implementation was: randomNumbers groupedBy: [:number \| (number / increment) truncated] This produces a dictionary of sets that has integers as keys, and set of all numbers that produced that integer in the block as vaules. -- The rich, as usual, are employing the elected. -- [link\|http://unfit2print.blogspot.com/\|http://unfit2print.blogspot.com/]
Post #128,884 by Simon_Jester 12/4/03 11:44:55 AM Reply	Okay...so your 'cheat' is the method Rather than walk through our collection, we apply to each element of the collection at one time. I still would use my 2nd way, making the collection a set of objects, each object knowing whether or not to increment it's counter when presented with a random number X. (Each object would have an upper/lower bound and test for them). Add a method to pull out the counter out of each object afterwards and you're done.
Post #128,891 by Arkadiy 12/4/03 11:59:42 AM Reply	see my answer to Ben below... -- The rich, as usual, are employing the elected. -- [link\|http://unfit2print.blogspot.com/\|http://unfit2print.blogspot.com/]

Smalltalk question - (Arkadiy) - (19) - Dec. 1, 2003, 06:06:29 AM EST

What's the unsolved part? -NT - (tuberculosis) - (1) - Dec. 1, 2003, 02:42:36 PM EST

The original problem - (Arkadiy) - Dec. 1, 2003, 03:38:19 PM EST

Why not solve it like you would in any language? - (ben_tilly) - (16) - Dec. 3, 2003, 07:18:29 PM EST

That is the problem I solved - (Arkadiy) - (15) - Dec. 4, 2003, 09:22:59 AM EST

2 ways - (Simon_Jester) - (11) - Dec. 4, 2003, 09:35:42 AM EST

Re: 2 ways - (Arkadiy) - (10) - Dec. 4, 2003, 09:37:43 AM EST

The iterator doesn't change the algorithm (with assumption) - (Simon_Jester) - (3) - Dec. 4, 2003, 09:47:03 AM EST

Smalltalk iterators are different - (Arkadiy) - (2) - Dec. 4, 2003, 10:50:10 AM EST

Okay...so your 'cheat' is the method - (Simon_Jester) - (1) - Dec. 4, 2003, 11:44:55 AM EST

see my answer to Ben below... -NT - (Arkadiy) - Dec. 4, 2003, 11:59:42 AM EST

Some iterators do provide indexes - (tuberculosis) - (5) - Dec. 5, 2003, 12:48:07 PM EST

Yay! - (Arkadiy) - Dec. 8, 2003, 10:56:26 AM EST

Why worry about that factor of 2? - (ben_tilly) - (3) - Dec. 8, 2003, 07:24:30 PM EST

Habit, I suppose - (tuberculosis) - (2) - Dec. 9, 2003, 01:29:41 PM EST

It isn't just you though - (ben_tilly) - (1) - Dec. 11, 2003, 01:06:39 AM EST

I know what you mean - (tuberculosis) - Dec. 11, 2003, 10:53:11 AM EST

Here is my second strategy in Ruby - (ben_tilly) - (2) - Dec. 4, 2003, 09:51:44 AM EST

I realized that introducing a bucket class makes it easy - (Arkadiy) - (1) - Dec. 4, 2003, 10:52:59 AM EST

Elegance is in the eye of the beholder - (ben_tilly) - Dec. 4, 2003, 02:40:45 PM EST