[squeak-dev] Re: SkipList
ken at kencausey.com
Thu Mar 27 21:58:43 UTC 2008
That's a bit extreme. Just because I was not sufficiently interested in
replying to your reply does not mean I might not want to use it some
The initial reason that SkipList>>at:put: does not replace the existing
definition is that it is implemented by calling
SkipList>>at:put:ifPresent: with an empty block. So when an existing
value is found it is silently ignored.
I don't have time right now to investigate but I suspect that since this
was pretty clearly intentionally implemented this way that there is a
good reason for it. The point is that it's not clear to me that what
you are reporting is a bug.
P.S. I should clarify that I'm not opposed to things being removed.
But they should not simply be deleted. Removing to an external package
is an option but one that might be best deferred until there is someone
interested in actually maintaining such a package.
On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 22:15 +0100, nicolas cellier wrote:
> The fact that SkipList does not raise great interest is a good clue...
> Anyone to disagree that it is a good candidate for removal from Kernel?
> (like what happened to MappedCollection).
> nicolas cellier a écrit :
> > I was looking how to correct http://bugs.squeak.org/view.php?id=6778 .
> > Not that easy given structure of SkipList...
> > But first, I would like to understand something.
> > Why this:
> > | sk |
> > sk := SkipList new.
> > sk at: 3 put: '3333'.
> > sk at: 3 put: '666'.
> > self assert: (sk at: 3) = '3333'.
> > It works, I mean sk is silently ignoring my second #at:put: request.
> > Any reason for such a behavior?
> > And my second question, anyone ever used SkipList?
> > Nicolas
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20080327/23190994/attachment.pgp
More information about the Squeak-dev