:-D when even the ANSI standard has a sort of "multiple inheritance" diagram to explain its collection hierarchy, you see this suffering is lingering for a long time behaving as some Lost characters. . .! <warning> all the possible puns intended by the author or to be discovered by more careful reading are there to be enjoyed and are not accidental1 </warning> Well, now that nanotraits and a figment to have something like a mixin in Squeak/Pharo is around the corner, who knows??!! -- Cesar Rabak Em 23/12/2009 16:28, Stéphane Ducasse < stephane.ducasse@inria.fr > escreveu:
That's probably why Stephane proposed a UniqueOrderedCollection: he must have the expectation that this collection can be indexed in O(1)
Not really :) I was more looking at the user perspective. You often want an orderedCollection (add:) vs Array at: but which deals with duplicate as a Set. I will rename it because OrderedSet is not a good name because this is not a Set. Now this is boring because this is not an OrderedCollection (or you do not have to be forced to implement insert:after:..... I really see that the collection classes suffers from single inheritance and sometimes are too fat. A Nilish collection would be a fun exercise. May be we should start and get a cool OOPSLA paper out of that. Stef _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project