On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <s...@stfx.eu> wrote:
> Werner, > > > On 30 Nov 2015, at 15:15, Werner Kassens <wkass...@libello.com> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > SortedCollection>>storeOn: seems to have a little problem since it does > not store sortBlock and the used super-method (in Collection) uses #add: > which uses sortBlock and their default uses #<=, hence if the elements are > not comparable via #<=, but need a special sortblock, one gets an error on > retrieving that collection. of course i can circumvent that tiny problem by > defining #<= or using fuel, but i wonder whether i should report that on > the bugtracker? btw perhaps some other collections with instanceVariables > which do not define their own #storeOn: (eg Heap) could also have > eventually some problems. > > werner > > I am not so sure the #storeOn: / #readFrom: mechanism is still being > maintained. I am not using it in any case, I thought it was mostly broken. > I would be surprised if someone is still using it for real. > > But I might be wrong. In that case there should be a suite of real unit > tests that defines and maintains the expected behaviour. And then you would > be right, we should fix it. > Yes, I have the same feeling. And I hate having such a general protocol like #storeOn: in our kernel objects. Store how? using which serializer? I think if this protocol is still used it should be much clearer. But as Sven said, I am not sure if this is still used and if it does, which code use it, who is the "serializer", etc... -- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com
