On 11.04.2010 21:46, Levente Uzonyi wrote: > On Sun, 11 Apr 2010, Philippe Marschall wrote: > >> Hi >> >> While I was optimizing some Seaside code I found out that SocketStream >> does not understand #next:putAll:startingAt: [1]. It's quite a helpful >> method that allows one to write a subcollection of a collection to a >> stream without making a copy. In our case it would allow the codec to >> directly write to the socket stream. >> >> Anyway what I wanted to say is this is fixed in Network-Kernel-pmm.29 ;-) >> >> [1] http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=2292 > > FYI: http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=2244
Oops, sorry. The merged code is a bit different, it's oriented more towards the current #nextPutAll: - it answers self like #nextPutAll: and not the collection passed in. ANSI says it's unspecified and current implementations are not conclusive, most answer the collection but not all. That probably means we should change #nextPutAll: as well. - it explicitly checks for n = 0 as a guarding clause. That's certainly discussable, I found algorithms easier to write when I don't have to check for n = 0 at the send site. - it had an off by one error - like #nextPutAll: it does type conversion based on the mode. To sum up: - #nextPutAll: and #next:putAll:startingAt: should probably be changed to answer the collection and fix other implementations. - if the type conversion is needed (I believe so) then SocketStream should do it - the n = 0 guarding clause is discussable - IMO consistency with #nextPutAll: is important Cheers Philippe _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
