dazed by SortedCollection
Jon M. DeLaurier
jdelaurier at vanisle.net
Mon Aug 31 22:52:57 UTC 1998
> <snip>
>At 10:28 AM 8/31/98, Patrick Logan wrote:
>> The problem with the new versions is that we are forgeting special
>> the SortCollection protocol.
>>
>> #addLast: adds an element without resorting (sneaky)
>>
>>Why is #addLast allowed to be sneaky but #at:put: is disallowed
>>altogether?
>>
>
>SortedCollections are never guaranteed to have any element at a particular
>location, just in order. If you insert an element at a location, the ideal
>SortCollection will immediately resort itself to stay correct. The element
>will more than likely not still be at the location you put it in, making
>#at:put: meaningless. By this reasoning _all_ the inherited adding methods
>are also meaningless except #add:. To this end I have added:
>
>SortCollection>>#addWithoutSorting: anObject
> ^super add: anObject
>
>and changed #copyFrom:to: to use #addWithoutSorting: instead of
>inappropriately using #addLast:.
>
>--Maurice
>
I am dazed and confused! Why would you want to add to a sorted collection
without sorting? It seems to me to be a canidate for the more general
collection class. So again why have an addLast: method in the
SortCollection
class??
Jon
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Jon M. DeLaurier | vox : 250.656.6176 |
| 2209 Bradford Av | |
| Sidney, B.C. V8L2C8 | |
| Canada | email: jdelaurier at vanisle.net |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| It is always darkest just before it gets black. (Dave Broadfoot 1996) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|