Re: [Oorexx-devel] An attempt to ... (Re: Comments on these new ooDialog methods

[Mark M. <mie...@gm...>]

On 7/14/07, Rony G. Flatscher <Ron...@wu...> wrote:
>
> Rick McGuire wrote:
>
>> And would also be difficult to implement, harder to extend in the future,
>> and impose more responsibility over anybody wishing to subclass the methods.
>>  These are also more difficult to document, since all of the options get
>> presented in one place, frequently with complex syntax diagrams, which make
>> it more difficult to locate the correct function.  And when it's all said
>> and done, you STILL have multiple methods, but now the names include a
>> couple parens and quotation marks in order to use.

> I do not agree (for ooRexx).
>
> It is fairly easy to explain newcomers as well as experts the BIF
> "DATATYPE", its purpose, its parameters. The documentation is clear and easy
> to understand, although there are *thirteen* different modes/implementatoins
> of carrying out that single BIF!
>
> Following the belief "one functionality, one function" at all times, one
> would have to implement all variants of the DATATYPE usage/mode as their own
> function/method, hence one would come up with the following function/method
> galore:
>
> DATATYPE(val), returns "NUM" or "CHAR"
> isDataTypeAlphaNumeric(val): returns .true or .false
> isDataTypeBinary(val): returns .true or .false
> isDataTypeLowerCase(val): returns .true or .false
> isDataTypeMixedCase(val): returns .true or .false
> isDataTypeNumber(val): returns .true or .false
> isDataTypeLogical(val): returns .true or .false
> isDataTypeSymbol(val): returns .true or .false
> isDataTypeUpperCase(val): returns .true or .false
> isDataTypeVariable(val): returns .true or .false
> isDataTypeWholeNumber(val): returns .true or .false
> isDataTypeHexaDecimal(val): returns .true or .false
> isDataType9(val): returns .true or .false Some observations:
>
> We now have 13 (!) functions instead of one! This would make it *hard* on
> the user (ooRexx programmer).

There is more in the whole e-mail than I can reply to, so I'm just
picking this portion.

For myself, I see it this way.  Almost every time I use DataType, I
look it up because I can not remember what the flag is that I need to
check for the particular type I am checking for.  However DataType
here is a function, I'm used to having to look up the correct
parameters for functions.  So I never thought about it much until you
brought up the easy to remember part.

Second, I think there is a difference here between a function and a
method of a class.  Plus, I think you over-did the names to help make
your point, which is perfectly legit, I do it all the time.  <grin>

I think you should pick the datatype *method* for this example and you
don't need to put datatype in the name:

item = ioObject~readWord

if item~isAlphaNumeric
if item~isBinary
if item~isLowerCase
if item~isMixedCase
if item~isNumber
if item~isLogical
if item~isSymbol
if item~isUpperCase
if item~isVariable
if item~isWholeNumber
if item~isHexaDecimal

I would prefer that over: if item~datatype( 'O' )  And it would be
easier for me to remember.  And, I think it reads more like the
English than a computer language.  Which is the only part of
"rexx-ish" I understand.  <grin>

Now, one thing I think is true about life in general is, all things in
moderation. I agree this can be overdone.

However, for this one part of your argument - your argument swayed me
in the opposite direction you intended.  <grin>

--
Mark Miesfeld