> From: Sheridan Mahoney <[email protected]> > Date: December 3, 2009 11:04:19 PM GMT+01:00 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: getting rid of Symbol >> new: ? > Reply-To: [email protected] > > > A colleague and I are investigating the ImageSegment class and its methods, > we came across an issue I would like to get external opinions on. Newbie > alert, BTW (at least one of us, no names mentioned...). Also, this is not a > problem that will affect many users, but it is familiarizing us with the > check-in process, slices, etc. While working on ImageSegment tests, we > discovered a problem on trying to load segments that had Symbols in the root > array. It is possible to create 2 ByteSymbols with the same sequence of > characters. :( In trying to track down how this is possible, we came across > a side issue, that ByteSymbol new: had the capacity to create multiple > new ByteSymbols with the same number of nil characters (as in, initialized > with nil). We want to dissallow Symbol new: , which would cause people > to use one of the nicer methods for Symbol/ByteSymbol creation (namely, one > which checks that the sequence of characters doesn't already exist, as part > of the creation process). We have a fix we want to check in, but currently > it breaks a test case in the SymbolTest class, which is checking that new: > works. We also changed the intern: method on the class side of Symbol to > use basicNew: instead of new: . Are there reasons to keep 'Symbol > new:' , that outweigh the reasons to get rid of it? > Many thanks, > and Cheers, > Sheri Mahoney
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
