On Fri, 21 Sep 2012, Colin Putney wrote:

> Levente wrote:
>
>>> Some code uses #at:put: only, others try #includesKey: and #at:ifAbsent:
>>> which might not work as expected (see above).
>
> Eliot responded:
>
>> OK, then fix the code.  at:put: seems right.  at:ifAbsentPut: will create
>> the wring kinds of bindings right?
>
> I ran into this too. I'd like to fix the code by creating a new
> protocol for dealing with bindings explicitly. Environment would
> implement this protocol, and client code will use the new protocol
> rather than manipulating dictionaries directly. So #at:put: would
> become #bind:to: and so forth, with only a limited subset of the
> functionality that dictionaries provide. Then we can add messages for
> higher-level operations like removing or renaming classes.

Right, that's how it should be done.


Levente

>
> Colin
>
>