No, you did not get the point.

Would you say that:

(Collection new add: $f; add: $o; add: $o; yourself) == (Collection  
new add: $f; add: $o; add: $o; yourself) ?

Besides, the last example in my mail is also worth explaining...


On 14 Feb 2007, at 14 February/20:58, Bert Freudenberg wrote:

> On Feb 14, 2007, at 20:27 , Roel Wuyts wrote:
>
>> 'foo' = 'foo' 			true		"ok"
>> 'foo' == 'foo' 			true		"NOT OK"
>> [...]
>> I can only conclude that this is really not what you want.....
>
> Why? If you want to test for identity, use a Symbol.

:-)

>
> IMHO this is splitting hairs over a non-issue. The issue is  
> mutability of literals.

If Squeak is the only Smalltalk that has this behaviour for Strings,  
than it shows that is definitely an issue........... I ported T-Gen  
and the ParserCompiler, and suddenly this non-trivial issue becomes  
vital. We are still unable to port the logic language Soul to Squeak  
because of this issue, because, sorry, symbols use a flyweight  
pattern and are unique while Strings are collections of characters  
and should behave as such. It is a simple issue in itself. Besides,  
if it would be only splitting hairs, then why are all beginner's  
books full of warning for this issue ? Ever tried to teach Smaltalk  
to a class of newbies ? Ever had students come up to you because when  
they find some examples in a book or on the web and they tried in  
Squeak the results are different ? Think about Smalltalk being this  
nice and clean language where everything is logical and then having  
to remember by heart some stupid rules because I am splitting  
hairs ???????

Besides, have a look at the last part of my mail. Would you not  
consider this wrong ? Depending on whether you call the behaviour  
from a method or not you get different behaviour ???????????????


[PS: Yes, you hit a sore spot there]

--
Roel