thanks On Jun 23, 2010, at 11:14 PM, Nicolas Cellier wrote:
2010/6/23 Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr>:
this is probably a mistake when we integrated hashedCollection. If you have a better idea we are happy to hear it.
Stef
I suggest ^self valuesDo: aBlock like it always did.
Nicolas
On Jun 23, 2010, at 10:52 PM, Nicolas Cellier wrote:
I noticed a change of Dictionary>>do: now defined in term of associationsDo: The change seems rooted at:
Name: Collections-Unordered-TristanBourgois.84 Author: TristanBourgois Time: 10 May 2010, 10:44:10 am UUID: 0252ec21-211a-4c03-a29b-209cdc6cecd2 Ancestors: Collections-Unordered-TristanBourgois.81
I change methods do: and associationsDo: for compatibility for inheritance between HashedCollection and Dictionary
Where can I find related issue with a bit of rationale ?
Nicolas
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project