Hm, I did not know about removeAllSuchThat:, but in looking at it, I
find two things "wrong" with it.  1) the superclass implementation in
Collection makes a copy of the collection, which is the basis of my
reason to use reverseDo: instead of enumerating a copy myself.

But I'm using an OC and OC overrides it without making the copy.
That's good, but I also need to know which elements were removed.  I
ended up doing it like:

  myCollection removeAllSuchThat: [ : each | each meetsMyCondition
and: [ each doSomething.  true ] ]

I think it would be nice if removeAllSuchThat: could be similar to
remove: in this respect, but at least, unlike Java, Smalltalk lets me
put any "doSomething" expression in the block as long as it finally
evaluates to a boolean.

Thanks.

On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de> wrote:
>
> On 03.07.2013, at 11:27, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> 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?
>
> What's wrong with removeAllSuchThat:?
>
> - Bert -
>
>