El vie, 27-11-2009 a las 06:15 -0600, Ralph Johnson escribió:
> > I think we need a common superclass for Streams and Collection named
> > Iterable where #do: is abstract and #select:, #collect:, #reject:,
> > #count:, #detect:, etc (and quiet a lot of the messages in enumerating
> > category of Collection) are implemented based on #do:
> >
> > Of course Stream can refine the #select:/#reject methods to answer a
> > FilteredStream that decorates the receiver and apply the filtering on
> > the fly.  In the same way #collect: can return a TransformedStream that
> > decorates the receiver, etc.
> 
> Since Stream can't reuse #select: and #collect: (or #count, and
> #detect: on an infinite stream is risky), 

Stream and Collection are just the 2 refinements of Iterable that we're
talking about in this thread, but there are a lot of classes that can
benefit from Iterable as a super-class. 

On the other side, Stream has #do: (and #atEnd/#next pair) and it's also
risky for infinite streams. To push this discussion forward, Is
InfiniteStream a real Stream? 

> they shouldn't be in the
> superclass. In that case, what is its purpose?
> 
> i think it is fine to give Stream the same interface as Collection.  I
> do this, too.  But they will share very little code, and so there is
> no need to give them a common superclass.
> 
> -Ralph Johnson

Cheers,

-- Diego