[squeak-dev] The Trunk: Collections-cmm.541.mcz
Frank Shearar
frank.shearar at gmail.com
Wed Oct 16 15:09:20 UTC 2013
On 16 October 2013 15:53, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I realise I'm the guy who touched this last, but it looks completely
>>>> wrong. I mean, the new name's an improvement. But we revert the most
>>>> recent submission, and then say that we reverted the _new_ most recent
>>>> submission... which was surely the _second_ most recent submission?!
>>>
>>> I don't think so. A installation of any method, whether by save or
>>> revert, makes it the most-recent submission, irregardless of its prior
>>> position / existence in the list.
>>
>> That's my point. Given submissions in order of a, b, c the most recent is c. We revert that, and then ask what the most recent submission is, to display to the user. But most recent now means b!
>
> It sounds like you're thinking that "most-recent submission" means
> "the one with the latest timestamp" but that is not the case.
> Timestamps do not come into play at all w.r.t. recent submissions.
> It's simply the order of installations of methods, whether the method
> is from 2013 or 2002.
My point is this: the method submissions _are_ ordered, if nothing
else than because they're in an OrderedCollection. (*)
So:
a := OrderedCollection with: 1 with: 2 with: 3.
Transcript showln: 'About to remove ', a last printString.
a removeLast.
Transcript showln: 'Removed ', a last printString
That gives
About to remove 3
Removed 2
Because you removed the last item in the collection! Unless I'm
completely mistaken, that's what the Transcripter is currently saying!
frank
(*) The pedant in me insists on mentioning that since all method
submissions in an image occur from one process, and from a user, that
they _are_ ordered by timestamp.
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|