Peter mentioned VA, whose Set's swallow nil's. Perhaps that's the
missing link in the communication here. Igor is talking about
*Squeak*, which does not swallow nil's, it throws an error.
So, to fix consequences instead of causes in the case of Squeak, the
software would have to be doing
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010, Chris Muller wrote:
Peter mentioned VA, whose Set's swallow nil's. Perhaps that's the
missing link in the communication here. Igor is talking about
*Squeak*, which does not swallow nil's, it throws an error.
So, to fix consequences instead of causes in the case of
Oh.. again..
@Ralph: if you don't want sets with nils, just don't put them there.
Why this isn't obvious for you?
Take a Squeak , which already supporting nils in sets.
Have you seen ANY reported breakage of existing code because of this?
On 12 April 2010 05:25, Levente Uzonyi le...@elte.hu
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Igor Stasenko siguc...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh.. again..
@Ralph: if you don't want sets with nils, just don't put them there.
Why this isn't obvious for you?
Take a Squeak , which already supporting nils in sets.
Have you seen ANY reported breakage of existing
2010/4/12 Peter Hugosson-Miller oldmanl...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Igor Stasenko siguc...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh.. again..
@Ralph: if you don't want sets with nils, just don't put them there.
Why this isn't obvious for you?
Take a Squeak , which already supporting nils in
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 2:06 PM, Igor Stasenko siguc...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/4/12 Peter Hugosson-Miller oldmanl...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Igor Stasenko siguc...@gmail.com
wrote:
Oh.. again..
@Ralph: if you don't want sets with nils, just don't put them there.
igor
peter snippets was just a dull example. Peter mentioned that some people fix
consequences instead of causes
Stef
___
Pharo-project mailing list
Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010, Peter Hugosson-Miller wrote:
snip
Sig, I agree with you! My example was of some code that would not survive
the transition: using a asSet as a cheap way to get rid of the *possible*
nils in a collection.
(ab)using asSet this way is bad practive (if it works at all in
On Apr 12, 2010, at 5:33 42PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
igor
peter snippets was just a dull example. Peter mentioned that some people fix
consequences instead of causes
Stef
Or their application may have different expectations for what methods are ok to
return collections with
Hi levente/igor
this hashedCollection is still on my radar. Now I was wondering if I should
work first on Set with nil or HashedCollection.
Any idea/suggestion?
Stef
On Mar 14, 2010, at 7:02 PM, Levente Uzonyi wrote:
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010, stephane ducasse wrote:
Hi levente and others
I
On 12 April 2010 00:29, Stéphane Ducasse stephane.duca...@inria.fr wrote:
Hi levente/igor
this hashedCollection is still on my radar. Now I was wondering if I should
work first on Set with nil or HashedCollection.
Any idea/suggestion?
HashedCollection is more important/basic refactoring
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
Hi levente/igor
this hashedCollection is still on my radar. Now I was wondering if I should
work first on Set with nil or HashedCollection.
Any idea/suggestion?
I think it's easier to add HashedCollection first, then the nil support
for Set,
Ok I will do that.
Stef
On Apr 11, 2010, at 11:39 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
On 12 April 2010 00:29, Stéphane Ducasse stephane.duca...@inria.fr wrote:
Hi levente/igor
this hashedCollection is still on my radar. Now I was wondering if I should
work first on Set with nil or HashedCollection.
Yes!
So I will follow your steps as soon as I have a bit of time.
Stef
On Apr 11, 2010, at 11:48 PM, Levente Uzonyi wrote:
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
Hi levente/igor
this hashedCollection is still on my radar. Now I was wondering if I should
work first on Set with nil
Hi levente/igor
this hashedCollection is still on my radar. Now I was wondering if I should
work first on Set with nil or HashedCollection.
Any idea/suggestion?
Stef
I think moving Dictionary out from under Set is a great idea.
However I am not convinced having a class HashedCollection
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010, Ralph Boland wrote:
Hi levente/igor
this hashedCollection is still on my radar. Now I was wondering if I should
work first on Set with nil or HashedCollection.
Any idea/suggestion?
Stef
I think moving Dictionary out from under Set is a great idea.
However I am not
On 03/14/10 06:22, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
thanks.
I'm waiting for the hash fixes that martin and andres are looking at.
OK, you've jostled me into once more actively trying to integrate the
hash changes into current 1.1... hopefully I'll be able to push to the
inbox soon. It will help
Hi martin
ok tell us what is good for you and we freeze and give you access for your
changes :)
When. Which version do you want to stay stable?
I know that marcus is integrated my changes (of yesterday) now.
Stef
On Mar 18, 2010, at 7:23 PM, Martin McClure wrote:
On 03/14/10 06:22, Stéphane
On 03/18/10 11:30, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
Hi martin
ok tell us what is good for you and we freeze and give you access for your
changes :)
When. Which version do you want to stay stable?
I know that marcus is integrated my changes (of yesterday) now.
I should have been more clear -- what I
Hi levente and others
I always wanted to have Dictionary not be a subclass of Set and you did it.
Now when you introduced that in Squeak, we were busy.
But now I'm so found of this change (like other Smalltalk - SmalltalkImage
current --- which we stopped in the
middle because lack of momentum
2010/3/14 stephane ducasse stephane.duca...@free.fr:
Hi levente and others
I always wanted to have Dictionary not be a subclass of Set and you did it.
Now when you introduced that in Squeak, we were busy.
But now I'm so found of this change (like other Smalltalk - SmalltalkImage
current ---
thanks.
I'm waiting for the hash fixes that martin and andres are looking at.
Stef
On Mar 14, 2010, at 2:10 PM, Nicolas Cellier wrote:
2010/3/14 stephane ducasse stephane.duca...@free.fr:
Hi levente and others
I always wanted to have Dictionary not be a subclass of Set and you did it.
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010, stephane ducasse wrote:
Hi levente and others
I always wanted to have Dictionary not be a subclass of Set and you did it.
Now when you introduced that in Squeak, we were busy.
But now I'm so found of this change (like other Smalltalk - SmalltalkImage
current --- which we
Yes I waiting.
But thanks for the step list because this is half of the work (I hope ;))
Stef
On Mar 14, 2010, at 7:02 PM, Levente Uzonyi wrote:
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010, stephane ducasse wrote:
Hi levente and others
I always wanted to have Dictionary not be a subclass of Set and you did it.
24 matches
Mail list logo
