> > The Erlang way: don't care about the order of arrival of 
> the messages, 
> > and let the developer care about that when it's important.
> >
> 
> Yes, a simple example when i need to have correct order:
> Collection>>do:
> 
> to print an array i'll have all items ordered from start to 
> end , not in random order.
> 
> And of course there are cases, when i don't need to have 
> items iterated in specific order. When i simply need to visit 
> all items in collection to send a message to them.
> 
> So, we need at least 2 messages to reflect a different behaviour:
> #do:
> and
> #orderedDo:
> 
> and that's only the simplest case...
> 
> >         Giovanni
> >
> 
Are you sure Igor? why you will a developer use an OrderedCollection if
he/she don't care about order? I think is more proper to use a aSet or aBag
even to perform something to the elements of that ordered collection in an
unordered way instead of (pre)asuming how #do: implements the traversal.

Perhaps you found another contraexample/s.

Cheers,

Sebastian