[BUG]Collection>>removeAll:
goran.hultgren at bluefish.se
goran.hultgren at bluefish.se
Fri Aug 30 10:27:37 UTC 2002
Hi again!
goran.hultgren at bluefish.se wrote:
> Well, crash is a harsh word! :-) I interpreted it as "will possibly not
> work" and given that interpretation I could NOT understand how adding a
> method *in any way* can make old code "break". Changing behaviour of an
Well, for pathological correctness I should of course acknowledge that
adding a method which "blocks" a method with the same name in a
superclass could break old code.
Btw, since we obviously are "stuck" when it comes to making removeAll:
"work" could we agree on the following changes at least:
- Add a #removeAll implementation in Collection, category undefined.
Comment stating it being non ANSI.
- Add concrete implementations of the same in suitable classes
- Do the identity check and signal an error in removeAll:
If nobody objects perhaps someone could whip up a changeset for public
review (before smacking it up as a FIX).
Then Richard's new findings in removeIndex: need to be followed up for
performance reasons, but that is another story.
regards, Göran
PS. I haven't seen any postings from Doug Way in a looong time, are you
out there Doug? :-) DS
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|