On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 22:00:09 +0100, nicolas cellier wrote:
Klaus D. Witzel a écrit :
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 21:01:14 +0100, nicolas cellier wrote:
cdrick a écrit :
or again removeAll: aCollection aCollection == self ifTrue: [self removeAll: aCollection copy] ifFalse: [aCollection do: [:each | self remove: each]]. Or maybe, if aCollection == self, a warning could be raised ? What do you think ? Cédrick
aCollection == self is not the only case that can fail. Imagine i pass a wrapper collection on self, like a MappedCollection.
When i will change self with remove:, i will also change the argument which is just a wrapper on self.
Hope my explanations are not too much confusing...
Let's see: "Remove each element of aCollection from the receiver. If successful for each, answer aCollection. Otherwise create an error notification." What mapping would *not* raise the error notification ;-)
My interpretation of the comment was rather for the case when we try to remove an element which is not in the collection... But OK, I take it as is...
However i can construct a test case that will not do what is expected and will not raise a notification, wanna bet?
No, just let the next people who attempt to bring MappedCollection back to Squeak > 3.10 take care ;-)
BTW: do you have as much energy for fixing problems as you seem to have for imagine the currently non-existing ;-) This would help Squeak jump forward :)
| collec1 collec2 | collec1 := OrderedCollection with: 'a' with: 'b' with: 'c'. collec2 := MappedCollection collection: collec1 map: (1 to: 2). "collec2 only map first two elements 'a' and 'b'" collec1 removeAll: collec2. "this should remove 'a' and 'b' from collec1" self assert: collec1 first = 'c' "too bad... it's 'b'"
BTW: MappedCollection does not exist in sq3.10-7159dev08.02.1.image ...
MappedCollection is just an example of possible wrapper collection, even if there is none in core images nowadays, that's a classical pattern which avoid copying for example.
MappedCOllection is in 3.9 image.
/Klaus
Nicolas