On 2008 May 4, Matthias Berth wrote:
> Hi,
> certainly you would not want all three of these, that would give an
> equivalence relation :-)

Oops how embarassing, that is what I get for writing anything just after 
waking up and before first coffee. I ment to ask whether the relation defined 
by sortBlock must be all of (or only some of) "reflexive, anti-symmetric, 
transitive", and/or whether any other condition is required for the sort to 
work. I tried to Google for such things as related to Smalltalk but could not 
find anything... 

> I think that SortedCollection>>should: a precede: b is the crucial
> method here, it uses <= as the default sorting relation. 
> Another 
> interesting method for you might be sortTopologically.

thanks, i did not realize sortTopologically is on SortedCollection. So far I 
ordered my class list manually (for installing classes into image) using an 
algorithm that should achieve same as sortTopologically but more cumbersome.

Thanks Milan

>
> Cheers
>
> Matthias
>
> On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 12:39 PM, Milan Zimmermann
>
> <milan.zimmermann at sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >  Is the "<" opertaion in SortedCollection>>#sortBlock required to be
> > reflexive, symmetric and transitive ?
> >
> >  I have a set of classes with known parent class and try to sort them so
> > they install into the image in the right order (parent first). The
> > obvious "<" implementation of parent < child may not be enough because it
> > not transitive unless I do some more sophisticated manipulation (I only
> > immediate descendant relationship)..
> >
> >  The sortBlock documentation provides no help on this...
> >
> >  Thanks Milan