2014-05-26 21:00 GMT+02:00 Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de>:

>
> On 2014-05-26, at 18:40, Levente Uzonyi <leves at elte.hu> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 26 May 2014, Marcel Taeumel wrote:
> >
> >> Should this work?
> >>
> >> OrderedCollection streamContents: [:result |
> >>      result nextPutAll: #(a b c) asOrderedCollection].
> >>
> >> Well, this works:
> >>
> >> OrderedCollection streamContents: [:result |
> >>      result nextPutAll: #(a b c)].
> >>
> >> And this works, too:
> >>
> >> OrderedCollection streamContents: [:result |
> >>      result nextPut: #foo; nextPutAll: #(a b c) asOrderedCollection].
> >
> > Even if it would work, it's a bad pattern, don't use it.
> OrderedCollection implements its own streaming API (#add:, #addAll:), which
> is a lot more efficient. I would use the same API as in streams in my own
> Smalltalk, but that's another story.
> >
> > Also, converting Arrays to OrderedCollections just to throw them away in
> the next step is just as bad as creating a stream over an
> OrderedCollection. Don't do it.
> >
> >
> > Levente
>
> Still, it should work, don't you think?
>
> - Bert -
>
>
It would work if only the implementation of Stream was less bloated.
With current state of code, making it work might have a hard price for low
reward IMO.
But I didn't look at exact details of the failure, maybe adding one more
patch will do it... (until the next bug)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20140526/f4a940bb/attachment.htm