Semantics of Set>>new in Squeak 3.9 -- To initialize or not to initialize?

stéphane ducasse ducasse at iam.unibe.ch
Tue Apr 4 19:37:21 UTC 2006


If I remember correctly at least on array this was the normal  
behavior since we wanted to shortcut the initialize invocation cost.
Now for Set I do not know.

Stef

On 4 avr. 06, at 20:47, John Pierce wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I am looking at the "new" class method in Squeak 3.9 (and maybe prior
> to that). It appears that most classes implement "new" as:
>
>   ^ self basicNew initialize
>
> which is implemented in Behavior. But the "Set" class re-implements
> "new" and does not invoke initialize.
>
> Is this behavior intended? I had a few classes that derive from
> Dictionary and used to work without calling initialize. Now I must
> explicitly invoke the constructor.
>
> Is this lack of congruency the desired behavior?
>
> John
>
> --
> It's easy to have a complicated idea. It's very very hard to have a
> simple idea. -- Carver Mead
>
>




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list