About at: and basicAt difference

Lex Spoon lex at cc.gatech.edu
Sun Jan 13 17:55:47 UTC 2002


> I should have said that I knew that.
> 
> My point was that the text following the primitives is different in
> Object>>at: and Object>>basicAt: while they both call the same primitive.

True, it would be nice if the comment made the distinction.  Would you
like to post a changeset?  :)

Also, puritanically, at: should probably call basicAt: instead of doing
the primitive itself.  That will probably impact performance a little,
but then again, calling #at: for one item at a time is likely to be slow
anyway.


-Lex




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list