On Dec 24, 2009, at 10:00 AM, Julian Fitzell wrote: > 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.
did I say that? I do not think so. I'm not that idiot. No I say that SortedCollection should understand sort: > 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 _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
