On Wed, 3 Jul 2013, Chris Muller wrote:

> I have a case where I need to remove certain entries from an
> OrderedCollection that will be called very frequently.  I therefore
> want to avoid copying the collection (to safely remove while
> enumerating) but it seems #reverseDo: can do what I want.
>
>  myCollection reverseDo: [ : each | each meetsSomeCriteria ifTrue: [
> myCollection remove: each ] ]
>
> Does anyone see any problem with doing this?

Yes. Once the implementation of #remove:ifAbsent: changes, your code might 
break. You should use #removeAllSuchThat: as Bert suggested, which was 
designed to do exactly what you want. It has guaranteed O(n) runtime, 
unlike your #reverseDo: "hack", which has O(n*n).

If your OrderedCollection is large, then you should probably use 
another data structure.


Levente

>
>