Guillermo Polito <guillermopol...@gmail.com> writes:
> Ok, just was expecting (very very deeply) not having to modify too
> much in Glorp :). Anyway, I'll see what can I do in this front.
>
> Now Damien, if streaming is only intended for arrays and strings, I'd
> expect the expression 'OrderedCollection new writeStream' to raise an
> error... :/
Indeed. Also, just for my information, why aren't we using Nile?
Nico
>
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Levente Uzonyi <le...@elte.hu> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2012, Guillermo Polito wrote:
>
> soo, what do I do? :D
>
>
>
> Streaming into an OrderedCollection is unnecessary, because
> OrderedCollection is already a stream-like object. If I were
> implementing Smalltalk now, I would probably add the stream
> protocol to it (#nextPut:, #nextPutAll:, etc).
> A simple fix to your problem is to replace the line
>
> grownCollection := collection class new: newSize.
>
> with
>
> grownCollection := collection class ofSize: newSize.
>
> in WriteStream >> #growTo: (note that I didn't check current Pharo
> code, so this might be different there).
>
>
> Levente
>
>
>
>
> On 6/13/12, Camillo Bruni <camillobr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> yup I know that :D
> And I provided a fix on e year ago, that got lost in a big
> refactoring...
> - I added an explicit #streamSpecies on the Collection
> classes.
> - By default it returns the same class
> - on Set / OrderedCollection / Symbol it returns the
> mutable types
> (LinkedList as well I think)
> - overwrote #streamContents: to convert from the
> #streamSpecies type back to
> the original class
>
>
>
> On 2012-06-13, at 14:56, Guillermo Polito wrote:
>
> Hi guys!
>
> I'm chasing a bug that appeared in glorp under pharo
> 1.4. Now, the
> bug is due to some behavior changed in
> OrderedCollection I think. Look
> at this piece of code:
>
>
> oc := OrderedCollection new.
> ws := oc writeStream.
>
> "this explodes"
> ws nextPutAll: (OrderedCollection with: 1 with: 2
> with: 3).
>
> "this works"
> ws nextPutAll: {1.2.3}
>
>
> And I'm puzzled, why should one work and the other not
> from the pov of the
> user?
> And how should I replace that behavior if it's my bug?
>
> putting an asArray for each nextPutAll: does not look
> good for me... :S
>
> Tx,
> Guille
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Nicolas Petton
http://nicolas-petton.fr
