About at: and basicAt difference
ducasse at iam.unibe.ch
Mon Jan 14 11:59:53 UTC 2002
on 1/13/02 6:55 PM, Lex Spoon at lex at cc.gatech.edu wrote:
>> 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
In fact I was confused and forgot that the code after the primitive was the
code executed when the primitive failed so it could be different
More information about the Squeak-dev