[Newbies] Character allInstances size=0 for 5.3 latest

[Vaidotas Didžbalis]

hello Subbu,
Up until now I used v4.4 version image. I thought that my Smalltalk image
was broken after it reported that character has zero instances, -- no, I
don't need a solution here, it is the concern of having a system which is
less coherent than it was (v4.4).

Your second definition for the term Instance, I believe, is not good, --
where is it taken from? Here, as a user I care about interface and correct
results, not about performance.

The name of a method is essential in order to understand what the system
does. Now, v5.3 states that there are 0 instances of the Character in it.
This is not true. We could rename the method, register a bug for the X
release, or why not signal an exception  (#NotImplemented)? Because as it
stands now, class Character does not know how to respond to a question
about its instances but instead it claims to know and gives the incorrect
answer.

regards,
Vaidotas


On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 7:07 AM K K Subbu <kksubbu.ml at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 01/03/20 1:41 AM, Vaidotas Didžbalis wrote:
> > Thank you for your explanations, but ... but we have characters in the
> > image. Having a characters in the image means that Character has
> > instances. If alInstances method cannot report about them, it shall fire
> > exception perhaps, or, name allInstances must be changed to something
> > else, isn't it?
>
> Instance has two meanings.
>
> * the first one is as you explain it. This is usually the meaning
> intended in all textbooks and applies to the overall object model (e.g.
> $a isKindOf: Object is true).
>
> * The second one is an object allocated in memory and is the one of most
> interest in practice. Such objects need memory allocation, reference
> counting and garbage collection services. The method allInstances uses
> the word instances in the latter sense. Immediate objects don't need
> these services, so they are not considered. (e.g. $a class
> isImmediateClass is true).
>
> This is like calling 45, 045 or 0045 as two digit numbers because
> leading zeros are not significant in practice.
>
> Could you explain the context behind your question?
>
> Regards .. Subbu
> _______________________________________________
> Beginners mailing list
> Beginners at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/beginners/attachments/20200302/0ef31304/attachment.html>