2009/11/13 Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de>:
> Igor Stasenko wrote:
>>
>> 2428 run, 2406 passes, 0 expected failures, 15 failures, 7 errors, 0
>> unexpected passes
>>
>>
>> After applying changes to sets using nil wrappers [1]:
>>
>> 2428 run, 2406 passes, 0 expected failures, 15 failures, 7 errors, 0
>> unexpected passes
>>
>>
>> After adding changes to sets using negative tally[2]:
>>
>> 2428 run, 2406 passes, 0 expected failures, 15 failures, 7 errors, 0
>> unexpected passes
>
> Those are great results!
>
>> [1] http://bugs.squeak.org/file_download.php?file_id=3829&type=bug
>
> Yeah... seeing the code I like the wrapper solution even better. It's just
> so elegant. Virtually no overhead, nicely dealing with all sorts of
> nestings, having the option for future extensions (weak elements, collection
> elements etc). I think I've just promoted that to my top choice ;-)
>
Yes, i can't resist the elegancy of idea as well, that's why i put it
first in my list of preference :)

> Seriously folks, look at that code. It's a great solution.
>
> Cheers,
>  - Andreas
>
>



-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.