Hi,<div><br></div><div>ReadWriteStream inherits from WriteStream which hinerits from PositionableStream.</div><div>When you create a ReadWriteStream with #on: you use the default definition in PositionableStream :</div><div>
<br></div><div>PositionableStream class &gt;&gt;�on: aCollection�</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre">	</span>&quot;Answer an instance of me, streaming over the elements of aCollection.&quot;</div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre">	</span>^self basicNew on: aCollection</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>#on: is not overriden in the instance side of ReadWriteStream and therefore it&#39;s the definition of WriteStream that is called :</div>
<div><br></div><div>WriteStream &gt;&gt;�on: aCollection</div><div><br></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre">	</span>super on: aCollection.</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre">	</span>readLimit := 0.</div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre">	</span>writeLimit := aCollection size.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Put the readLimit at 0 make sense for a WriteStream ( with witch your not supposed to read ) but when you create a ReadWriteStream on a collection you would be able to read what is already in the collection, no?</div>
<div>I wonder why #on: has not been overriden in the instance side of ReadWriteStream ?</div><div>Maybe it&#39;s not a good idea to create a ReadWriteStream with a collection that already includes elements ?</div><div><br>
</div><div><br></div><div><br></div>