ok thanks for the information. On Mar 15, 2010, at 7:08 AM, Levente Uzonyi wrote:
On Mon, 15 Mar 2010, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
so may be the bug entry should have stated that because oscar and nico spend a day on it.
The good news is that the tests are ready which is probably the larger part. The bad news is that integrating the tally hack is easier, than the SetElement version (which is also Igor's code, but that may not be clear from my previous mail).
Levente
Stef
On Mar 15, 2010, at 12:56 AM, Henrik Sperre Johansen wrote:
On 15.03.2010 00:18, Igor Stasenko wrote:
2010/3/14 Levente Uzonyi<leves@elte.hu>:
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
during the sprint niko schwarz and oscar nierstrasz fixed the Set in nil entry. Thanks. http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=1907 Why did you choose Igor's negative tally hack instead of the SetElement version?
I'd prefer to use SetElement, unless there was a decision made, to use negative tally. We had a quite big discussion around it on squeak-dev, and most developers said that SetElement is the way to go, because it is clean, OO-oriented, even if somewhat slower comparing to other approaches.
+1
_______________________________________________ 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