On Oct 26, 2009, at 3:02 AM, Andrew P. Black wrote: > I agree with Nicolas, but I think that it's really important that we > have this discussion, reach a consensus, and them implement it!
yes yes yes. Communicating is the best way to increase the level of knowledge in the community. > > That's why I posted the message here rather than just posting a bug > report. > > There used to be a method called hasSameElementsAs: (now called, > inexplicably, sameElements:) that could be pressed into service so > that two intervals, or an array and and interval, can have the same > elements but still be unequal. But the role of species was to > define when things could be equal... > > Maybe we need a method "hasSameSequenceOfElementsAs:" which would be > applicable to any pair of sequenceable collections, as well as > being faster to implement, than sameElements: (which is currently > quadratic). > > On 25 Oct 2009, at 06:53, Nicolas Cellier wrote: > >> >> IMO, we should not let Array hash ~= Interval hash coexist with >> Array = Interval >> Because it's like putting some traps on programmers path. >> One day or the other an application will exhibit a non repeatable >> error, just because the size of a Set was different and caused a >> collision. > > _______________________________________________ > 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
