Hi, I tried to reach the author for several weeks but he doesn't seem to respond so I am trying to reach a wider audience to either confirm my suspicion or to be corrected. In http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/~MongoTalkTeam/mongotalk/diff/Mongo-BSON-HenrikSp... the following change is done: + "digitAdd: wraps around to 0 when result would overflow" + ^ counter := counter + ifNil:[self newCounter] + ifNotNil:[counter digitAdd: 1]! - ^ counter := (counter + 1) \\ 16rFFFFFF! The old code has overflow checking, the new code makes a statement I don't think is true. counter is LargePositiveInteger new: 3 to use three bytes. So given the above code and the experiment (yes I could just add a bigger number) | id | id := LargePositiveInteger. 1 to: (16777215 + 50) do: [:each | id := id digitAdd: 1]. id. Given the comment it should overflow and the value be 50? This is not what the result is. So shall the truncation be added again or at least the comment be updated? The code will go from LargePositiveInteger to SmallInteger when overflowing from three to four bytes but luckily
#value ... replaceFrom: 1 to: 3 with: self class counterNext startingAt: 1
will even work when counterNext returns a SmallInteger. But given the old code and the comment in the new code this is does not seem to function as intended? kind regards holger PS: The other part is that >>#newCounter doesn't seem to be ever executed. On first load >>#initialize will call >>#reset and on >>#shutDown: calls reset. So the code to "randomize" the initial counter doesn't seem to work.