Jarvis, Robert P.
Jarvisb at timken.com
Thu May 27 19:28:46 UTC 1999
If I recall correctly the Squeak Central people aren't in any great rush to
be "ANSI compliant". Squeak is to be the "next" Smalltalk (in the tradition
of Smalltalk-80, Smalltalk-78, Smalltalk-76, -74, and -72, where each newer
version made its predecessor obsolete). Looking through the draft version
of the standard I have available to me it looks like the Association class
is not part of the standard. The following is used as the definition of the
1.1.1 Protocol: <Dictionary>
Draft 1: April 20, 1995 -- Brian M. Barry
9/97 group review/revision at Aylmer meeting
Represents an unordered collection whose elements can be
accessed using an explicitly assigned external key. Key equivalence is
defined as sending the #= message.
So it looks like Association is simply an implementation artifact, as is the
definition of the #= message when sent to an Association. So it looks like
they're all "conforming" implementation.
The Timken Company
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Clarke [SMTP:clarkej at cuug.ab.ca]
> Sent: Thursday, May 27, 1999 2:27 PM
> To: 'squeak at cs.uiuc.edu'
> Subject: RE: Comparing Associations
> I'm not familiar with the ANSI Smalltalk standard, nor am
> I aware whether Squeak attempts to conform to it.
> But perhaps that's why Association uses the definition for =
> it inherits from LookupKey, which simply matches the keys.
> I checked several implementations and found the semantics
> for = split as follows:
> VS 3.0 and Squeak require that only the keys match,
> while VA and VW 3.0 require that the values match as well.
> (I'm assuming that VA and VW follow the ANSI definition.)
> BTW, did you get a response to whether Thinglab has
> been ported to VW? If so, I must have missed it.
> John Clarke
> Pierre wrote:
> Why method = is not redefined properly in class Associations?
More information about the Squeak-dev