July 25, 2012
11:30 a.m.
On 25 July 2012 11:42, Mariano Martinez Peck <marianopeck@gmail.com> wrote:
Guys. Did I miss something or ContextPart>>copyTo: should be renamed to #copyUpTo: ?
You feel that #copyTo: implies an inclusive bound? There's only one #copyTo: implementor (ContextPart) and only one #copyUpTo: (SequenceableCollection) and both are "up to and including" copies. In other words there isn't a clear precedence one way or the other for having #copyTo: meaning either "and including" or "not including". Your argument is, I guess, that there should be? (The method comments are perfectly clear on what both method do, at least.) frank
Thanks,
-- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com