http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=5101 check :) About the copy I do not know.

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Stéphane Ducasse <Stephane.Ducasse@inria.fr> wrote: This is a pity that allSharedPools does not return an ordered unique collection.

Class>>allSharedPools "Answer a Set of the pools the receiver shares, including those defined in the superclasses of the receiver." | aSet | ^self superclass == nil ifTrue: [self sharedPools copy] ifFalse: [aSet := self superclass allSharedPools. aSet addAll: self sharedPools. aSet]

since sharedPools returns now an orderedCollection I doubt that the uniqueness will the guaranteed.

I have just tested, and of course, it includes duplicates. Why not a simply:

Class>>allSharedPools "Answer a Set of the pools the receiver shares, including those defined in the superclasses of the receiver." | aSet | ^(self superclass == nil ifTrue: [self sharedPools copy] ifFalse: [aSet := self superclass allSharedPools. aSet addAll: self sharedPools. aSet]) asSet

?

BTW, why it does a copy ?

Behavior>>allSharedPools "Answer a Set of the names of the pools (Dictionaries or SharedPool subclasses) that the receiver and the receiver's ancestors share."

^superclass allSharedPools

I think it answers a list of SharedPool subclasses, not names.

Now on a metaclass we will climb up the inheritance chain for nothing so I would define allSharedPools as follows

ClassDescription>>allSharedPools "Answer a Set of the pools the receiver shares, including those defined in the superclasses of the receiver."

^ OrderedCollection new

Tell me what you think?

Stef

-- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com