On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 3:57 PM, nicolas cellier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > While running TestRunner, i noticed this: > > LinkedListTest>>testTAdd does an infinite loop.
yes, this is fixed in the next commit in PharoInbox. > Anyway, I find LinkedList is NOT a generic Collection but rather a single > not reusable hack for Process. Exactly. The tests do not loop anymore, but now some fail because LinkedList is not polymorphic with other SequenceableCollections, e.g you cannot do LinkedList new add: 42 because it expects instances of Link as elements. > This is regularly bugging newcomers, and I would recommend an evolution > toward something like > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/beginners/2008-July/004835.html Great! I will have a look at that. > That is, Link should be a transparent-implementation-defined-intermediate > not visible via standard add:/remove:/do: messages. > User should not have to provide a Link, but only the value. Well I think there should be a linked-list-specific protocol for dealing with links, either via link objects or by delegation through LinkedList. But this should not overlap with the SequenceableCollection protocol. > Only LinkedList specialized messages like addLink: removeLink: linksDo: > should deal with user provided Link for more advanced features. > Think of Dictionary and Association. A user can use Dictionary with: at: / > at:put: without knowing about Association. Exactly -- Damien Pollet type less, do more [ | ] http://people.untyped.org/damien.pollet _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
