Hi Martin,

    FWIW I would like to add that I agree with Richard's point of view.

    I will not repeat what already was said on this thread, only say that my
intuition is opposite than yours, and to remark that there are Collections
based on identity ready for use on the image (IdentitySet, IdentityBag and
IdentityDictionary) if I would want to implement a database with a set.

Regards,
Hernán

----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Wirblat" <sql.mawi at t-link.de>
To: "Squeak" <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 8:35 AM
Subject: Re: [BUG][FIX] WeakKeyDictionary>>keysAndValuesDo:


> >We have here 41 classes.  They actually provide a beautiful example
> >of why Martin Wirblat's code snippet provides misleading answers.
> >ReadWriteStream *does* define #= (and #hash) so as to compare states
> >(same position and same contents).  This contributes 10 classes to
> >the "doesn't use #==" set. However, the definition is (equivalent to)
> >
> >    = other
> >        ^(self class == ReadWriteStream and: [other class ==
> >        ReadWriteStream])
> >          ifFalse: [super = other]
> >          ifTrue:  [self position = other position and: [
> >                    self contents = other contents]]
> >
> >which means that the 9 descendants of ReadWriteStream should be
> >counted as using #==, which they aren't.
>
> Richard,
>
> this is actually a "beautiful example" of your ability to not only
> find all arguments which are supporting you, but to find some which
> are supporting the other side and make them look (at the first glance)
> as if it were the other way round. Additionally you come up with many
> facts which only have a loose connection to the core of the problem
> and finally you are hooking into every smallest sign of non-precision
> in what the other side said after interpreting it your way, even if it
> has nothing to do with the problem. Sometimes I have the impression
> that you are trying to disprove the validity of use of every single
> word, instead of trying to understand what their originator wanted to
> express.
>
> I was really interested why _you_ didn't stumble - as I did - about no
> (changing) Set in another Set, but it is hard to communicate with you
> this way.
>
> Anyway, I got your opinion and will refrain now from "continuing the
> debate" :)
>
> Thank you for your effort,
> Martin
>
>
>
>