On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 12:19 AM, Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected]> wrote: >> #sortBlock: is defined by ANSI on SortedCollection as an accessor and >>>> an instance creation method. That's what it sounds like and shouldn't >>>> be implemented on non-sorted collections. >>> >>> Why? what would be the reason not to use sortBlock: for others? >> >> The intention is different. #sortBlock: tells a collection to maintain >> itself as sorted even after additions and deletions. This message is not >> appropriate for collections that do not have that ability. >> >> #sortBlock: is not the best name for this functionality, but I think >> it's bad to use #sortBlock: with a different meaning. > > I agree :) > Now SortedCollection should understand sort too which uses sortBlock: > My main concern is polymorphism between collection which are nearly the same!
#sortBlock: is an accessor for the sortBlock instance variable on SortedCollection. It makes no sense for a collection that doesn't have that instance variable to have that accessor. That's like saying Array should implement #hashBlock: because PluggableSet has it... Julian _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
