<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 1:31 AM, Bert Freudenberg <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bert@freudenbergs.de" target="_blank">bert@freudenbergs.de</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">On Monday, 24 October 2016, monty <<a href="mailto:monty2@programmer.net" target="_blank">monty2@programmer.net</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Why not just make #size a subclassResponsibility or add abstract superclasses for lazy or infinite collections that implement #isEmpty using #do: and change #size to shouldNotImplement?<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>Because #do: is the only method required to be overridden by Collection subclasses. All other methods are implemented in terms of #do:.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>+1</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>So yes, if your Collection subclass has an optimized implementation for #isEmpty, then provide it. That is a small price to pay for making a class work optimally across different code bases.<br></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div><br></div><div>- Bert - </div>
</font></span><br><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><span style="font-size:small;border-collapse:separate"><div>_,,,^..^,,,_<br></div><div>best, Eliot</div></span></div></div></div>
</div></div>