Why Associations are Magnitudes in Smalltalk? -


i haven't checked many dialects yet (in pharo association subclass of lookupkey, subclass of magnitude) presume common.

isn't definition counterintuitive? associations take part in unordered collections , don't think smalltalker ever takes account keys sent #<=. know whether inherited old implementations of smalltalk , never bothered challenge, or me missing something. bottomline: has ever used feature?

i don't think dictionary needs that; needs = , hash.

however, want list of associations , sort them later (eg. show them in sorted list). then, nice have order defined already.

and cost "<" method in association (or lookupkey, if superclass), comes free inheriting magnitude instead of object.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

html - Outlook 2010 Anchor (url/address/link) -

javascript - Why does running this loop 9 times take 100x longer than running it 8 times? -

Getting gateway time-out Rails app with Nginx + Puma running on Digital Ocean -