On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:56:45 +0100, Igor Stasenko wrote:

> On 15/02/2008, Klaus D. Witzel wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 13:56:37 +0100, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>>
>>  ...[snipped a lotta rock'n roll]...
>>
>> > For this reasons, i'd like to operate with interpreters using handles
>>  > instead of indexes.
>>
>>
>> Here you seem to demonstrate an enormous lack of inconsistency :( In a
[oops, s/of incons/of cons/]
>>  previous posting you advertise use of an index
>>
>
> It's just doits.

How do you mean that, is (sms := HydraSMS doitAt: 2), the statement you  
seem to be concerned about, not doit?

> If you look at regular code in classes i never using
> #at: patterns, only handles.

No, I looked at HydraVM>>#doit:at:, subtracted one colon and therefore got  
HydraSMS>>#doitAt: ... :)

>>  -
>> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2008-February/125150.html
>>
>> which suddenly no longer shall be used?
>>
>
> you can use them in doits,

But I did ! (sms := HydraSMS doitAt: 2)

> i'm just wanted to say, that in objects it
> better to keep handles, not indexes.

I cannot see any reason for this. The collection is created and populated  
by+after startup.

BTW: can you run a snapshot of a Hydra-infected .image (which may contain  
your handles) with a non-Hydra interpreter .exe?

>>
>>  > This, in particular, can guarantee that if you save your image which
>>  > contains references to handles, they will render invalid during next
>>  > squeak session.
>>
>>
>> Who wants that, what would that be good for?
>
> Don't ask me who may wants that.

Okay. Forget I asked.

> I don't know :)
> If you keeping an indexes within objects, then after restart, your
> code will continue working not suspecting that there is no image with
> given index or even worse , there is, but its serving for different
> purposes.
>
>