Michael van der Gulik wrote:
On 4/27/09, Miguel Enrique Cobá Martínez <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi all,
are there any reason to prefer:
"adding 2 objects"
array := Array with: anObject.
array := array copyWith: aSecondObject
"removing object"
array := array copyWithout: aSecondObject.
instead of:
"adding 2 objects"
oc := OrderedCollection new.
oc add: anObject.
oc add: aSecondObject.
"removing object"
oc remove: aSecondObject ifAbsent: []
This in reference to
Class >> addSubclass: and Class >> removeSubclass: methods
In this particular case, I think you've made a valid point. I can't
see any obvious reason why an OrderedCollection can't be used. My
first suspicion is that this code was written before
OrderedCollections were added to the system (i.e. in 1980 sometime).
It might also have been written this way to make sure that the image
could potentially run without an OrderedCollection class (e.g. when
bootstrapping an image or something).
Yes I thought that, as the Array is one of the special objects, and it
was necessary to build the first version of OrderedCollection.
The first three variables of Class (i.e. superclass, methodDict,
format) are special and accessed directly by the VM meaning that they
need to be carefully worked with, but as far as I know all of the
other instance variables can be toyed with. Just be careful though...
changing something here the wrong way is likely to break the compiler
or the image.
I don't have plans of modify those methods, just searching for
implementations of parent/child pointers and in a thread, someone
mentioned those methods as a good implementation.
Gulik.
Thank you,
Miguel Cobá
_______________________________________________
Beginners mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners
