On 2009-10-26, at 10:37 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote: > and why the key should go away? > I think that this is an implementation nuance, but not bug or > missing feature. > No-one would expect from dictionary keys to automatically mutate > depending on the state of the associated values. > If you want such behavior, why not implement own WeakLookupTable ? >
Ok, well (a) I don't think any of the set or dictionary logic is particularly written with thread safety in mind. No doubt a Mutex is needed to protect the integrity of the data. Someone can decide which version of Pharo should a fix for 0006955 (b) Although as Igor mentioned the fact the key goes away is a implementation detail, this in fact is useful. The situation you run into is storing entities in a weak value dictionary where the values do disappear however if you store a million entries then you end up with a million keys, so who is responsible for the cleanup? -- = = = ======================================================================== John M. McIntosh <[email protected]> Twitter: squeaker68882 Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com = = = ======================================================================== _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
