On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Henrik Johansen < henrik.s.johansen@veloxit.no> wrote:
Den 24.08.2010 17:58, skrev Nicolas Cellier:
2010/8/24 Schwab,Wilhelm K <bschwab@anest.ufl.edu>:
This cropped up in Dolphin some years back. IIRC, OA's answer was that streams historically worked on only Array and maybe something else. Having said that, they relaxed a constraint because it was harmless and a good idea.
I'm not sure about streaming over a set; lack of order means that it might be tricky to maintain a reasonable position??
Exactly, the Stream would hardly be positionable, unless you use a sort of OrderedSet... A ReadWriteStream would be problematic for the same reasons.
What would be the interest of such a Stream ? (I mean something more than what just you can do with #do:or #add:)
Nicolas +1. I don't quite see what use could would find in a stream of a non-sequenced source that is not better served by using a different abstraction, or the source itself..
Cheers, Henry
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Ok, but why can you then do a collect:[] / select:[] / do: [] over a set? It also iterates over all the elements. So why is it then strange to have a readstream over a set? I'm not saying it should be a positionable stream. But I also agree that is more logical to only do a ReadStream over a SequenceableCollection if you take into account positions ... Maybe change the code so that it only accepts a SequenceableCollection? Haven't tried Nile yet. Kind Regards, Bart