On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 8:19 PM, stepharo <[email protected]> wrote: > > Like Thierry I'm not sure that omitting the check brings a >> significant speedup. >> However, not doing this check follows the robustness principle: "Be >> conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others". >> > > But it violates the "if it ain't broke don't fix it", "it means what it > means", and "Smalltalk is a safe language" principles. That safety check > finds bugs. If one wants a more relaxed contract, implement a new > contract, don't break an existing contract that has stood for years. > > >> I would even be more liberal with a: >> 1 to: (self size min: otherCollection size) do: .... >> :) >> > > But you can write that if that's what you mean. But arbitrarily > changing existing protocol for weak reasons when _it ain't broke_ is a > recipe for chaos. > > Ok, then I will not do it...
Marcus
