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? I wonder why #on: has not been overriden in the instance side of ReadWriteStream ? Maybe it's not a good idea to create a ReadWriteStream with a collection that already includes elements ?
It looks like on: must be overridden in ReadWriteStream. With ReadStream I have: (ReadStream on: (1 to: 20)) next => 1 (ReadStream on: (1 to: 20)) next; next => 2 However, with ReadWriteStream, nil is returned, for the very problem you mentioned: (ReadWriteStream on: (1 to: 20)) next => nil If I cut and paste PositionnableStream>>on: in ReadWriteStream, then I have the behavior I expected: (ReadWriteStream on: (1 to: 20)) next => 1 (ReadWriteStream on: (1 to: 20)) next; next => 2 Cheers, Alexandre -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.