Would be good to have tests showing the problem.
Did you check if such method is not already covered (even by a bad test)?
Stef
On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 2:47 PM, Andy Burnett
<andy.burn...@knowinnovation.com> wrote:
> Ben wrote >>>
>
>
> Its not so much that your first example sorted the permutations, but that
> the collection contained only one permutation.
> I've swapped the order of your examples and downsized them to the simplest
> case to observe.
> Something seems broken. It works as expected if the "copy" is uncommented.
>
> Transcript clear.
> oc1 := OrderedCollection new.
> oc2 := OrderedCollection new.
> Transcript crShow:'a---'.
> (1 to: 3) permutationsDo: [ :each | Transcript crShow: each. oc1 add:
> each asOrderedCollection].
> Transcript crShow:'b---'.
> (1 to: 3) permutationsDo: [ :each | Transcript crShow: each. oc2 add:
> each "copy"].
> Transcript crShow:'c---'.
> Transcript crShow: { oc1 asSet size. oc2 asSet size}.
> Transcript crShow:'d---'.
> oc2 do: [ :x | Transcript crShow: x ].
>
> ==>
> a---
> #(1 2 3)
> #(1 3 2)
> #(2 1 3)
> #(2 3 1)
> #(3 2 1)
> #(3 1 2)
> b---
> #(1 2 3)
> #(1 3 2)
> #(2 1 3)
> #(2 3 1)
> #(3 2 1)
> #(3 1 2)
> c---
> #(6 1)
> d---
> #(1 2 3)
> #(1 2 3)
> #(1 2 3)
> #(1 2 3)
> #(1 2 3)
> #(1 2 3)
>
> cheers -ben
>
> <<<
>
> Thanks Ben,
> That is really interesting. I had completely misunderstood the problem.
> Checking the items in oc2 shows that they are literally the same object. So,
> it would seem that I have to run copy, or some other method to get a unique
> object.
>
> I can see that this would make sense from an efficiency perspective. Reusing
> the same object would presumably save memory space. However, it would
> probably be good to update the comment to let people know that this will
> happen.
>
> What is the process for submitting suggested improvements to class comments?
>
> Cheers
> Andy
