dazed by SortedCollection

Jon M. DeLaurier jdelaurier at vanisle.net
Mon Aug 31 22:52:57 UTC 1998

>  <snip>
>At 10:28 AM 8/31/98, Patrick Logan wrote:
>>    The problem with the new versions is that we are forgeting special
>>    the SortCollection protocol.
>>    #addLast:       adds an element without resorting (sneaky)
>>Why is #addLast allowed to be sneaky but #at:put: is disallowed
>SortedCollections are never guaranteed to have any element at a particular
>location, just in order.  If you insert an element at a location, the ideal
>SortCollection will immediately resort itself to stay correct.  The element
>will more than likely not still be at the location you put it in, making
>#at:put: meaningless.  By this reasoning _all_ the inherited adding methods
>are also meaningless except #add:.  To this end I have added:
>SortCollection>>#addWithoutSorting: anObject
>        ^super add: anObject
>and changed #copyFrom:to: to use #addWithoutSorting: instead of
>inappropriately using #addLast:.
I am dazed and confused! Why would you want to add to a sorted collection
without sorting? It seems to me to be a canidate for the more general
collection class. So again why have an addLast: method in the 


| Jon M. DeLaurier       |  vox :  250.656.6176                         |
| 2209 Bradford Av       |                                              |
| Sidney, B.C. V8L2C8    |                                              |
| Canada                 | email:  jdelaurier at vanisle.net               |
| It is always darkest just before it gets black. (Dave Broadfoot 1996) |

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list