On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 1:26 AM, Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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:
Ah, apologies - I misunderstood what you were saying (I was a little surprised that you would be arguing what I thought you were arguing :) ). Julian _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
