Right after I sent my initial post, I realized that I had overidden
Morph >> initialize in BugFixArchiveViewer >> initialize, without making
a call to "super initialize".  My bad!

While fixing my code, though, I noticed that lots of methods in the
Morphic framework assume that submorphs is not nil.  Is that an
optimization to avoid lots of isNil checks?   

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ned Konz [mailto:ned at bike-nomad.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 10:18 AM
> To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
> Subject: Re: [BUG][FIX][MCP] Morph >> subMorphsDo:
> 
> 
> On Wednesday 11 June 2003 05:32 am, Brent Vukmer wrote:
> > From Squeak3.6alpha of 17 March 2003 [latest update: #5259] 
> on 11 June 
> > 2003 at 8:32:02 am:
> >
> > Morph >> subMorphsDo: did not check whether the subMorphs ivar is 
> > empty or nil.  Now it does.  This is a 1-liner fix.
> 
> Yes, but submorphs should never be nil (it gets set in 
> Morph>>initialize), and there was no problem if it was empty (though
> perhaps this is an optimization?)
> 
> -- 
> Ned Konz
> http://bike-nomad.com
> GPG key ID: BEEA7EFE
> 
> 
>