damien so may be we should have
valueAt: or elementAt:
Now may be we should have different tests.
This is important to get the tests green since this is a goal of pharo
1.0
Ste
On Nov 1, 2008, at 5:11 PM, Damien Pollet wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
