On Apr 12, 2010, at 7:53 PM, Philippe Marschall wrote: > 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.
nicolas did the inverse in squeak > - 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 do you have some code? Because it seems that you have more knowledge than me on that :) Stef _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
