About Dictionary includes
Chris Muller
afunkyobject at yahoo.com
Wed Sep 15 14:56:57 UTC 2004
Dictionary's api already identifies the notion of an "Association" so I would
suggest an implementation of includesAssociation: rather than includesBinding:
includesAssociation: anAssociation
^ (myDictionary
associationAt: anAssociation key
ifAbsent: [ ^ false ]) value = anAssociation value
I just typed this up in the email, I haven't tested it, but the idea seems like
a worthy addition to Dictionary.
- Chris
--- stéphane_ducasse <ducasse at iam.unibe.ch> wrote:
> But I cannot know whether I have a pair #lulu -> 3.
> For me a dictionary is a set that contains pairs and not only their
> values.
> I may be wrong but what I put in a dictionary is not a single value but
> a pair. For me
> #lulu -> 5 is not equal to #lulu-> 6. and if I want to know whether a
> dictionary has a
> pair or binding I would like to use an includes: message.
>
> > For me, the current includes: makes Dictionary consistent and
> > compatible with
> > other collections. You can know whether an object is included in an
> > Array or
> > Dictionary without having to know which one you have. That each of
> > those
> > structures provides a different kind of key-access (integer-index vs.
> > object-key) is conveniently irrelevant.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > What is includesBinding:?
> >
> > - Chris
> >
>
>
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|