> > We agree, mod I wouldn't want to impose version maintenance homework > on > maintainers of large packages. For the sake of illustration only, and > using Magma without knowing if it would be affected, I wouldn't want > whoever is maintaining Magma to maintain two branches... one for Pharo > 1.xyz, and one for Pharo 1.xyz++.
They will have to and metacello will help them for that. Evolution has a price and I think that it should be low enough when considering advantage that this will be ok. >>> Well, more or less, because with scaledIdentityHash you'd need to > implement it in SmallInteger as ^self... but yes, I think hashed > collections shouldn't be put into a position where they judge what's a > good hash value and what isn't (and spend CPU time doing so at > runtime!!!). Java does this, and as far as I could see back when I > studied Java's hashing implementation, IMO it's not a good idea. Stef _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
